Facebook and Twitter deleted a video posted by President Trump that included a viral clip of two toddlers kissing after one of the parents who videotaped the meeting last year filed a rights claim. ‘author.
Jukin Media, the online company that entered into a license agreement with the parent who filmed the original encounter, told DailyMail.com that it had submitted a notice to Twitter demanding that the technology companies remove the clip.
“Yesterday, a tampered version of a video belonging to one of Jukin Media’s video partners was posted to Twitter by President Trump,” a Jukin spokesperson told DailyMail.com.
“ Neither the video owner nor Jukin Media gave the president permission to publish the video, and after our review, we believe that his unauthorized use of the content is a clear example of copyright infringement without fair use or other valid defense.
Twitter deleted a doctored clip from a viral video posted by President Trump after the owner claimed copyright infringement on Friday
“We have submitted a DMCA takedown notice on behalf of the creator of the video and in accordance with Twitter policy.
“In addition, we do not in any way support or tolerate the video manipulated or the message it conveys.
“We hope and hope that Twitter will take quick action to delete the video.”
Jukin did not say if he had sent a similar request to Facebook.
A Facebook spokesperson said CNN: “We have received a copyright complaint from the rights holder of this video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and have deleted the publication.”
At the time the video was deleted, it generated some 4 million views on Facebook and more than 20 million views on Twitter.
Before removing the spoofed video, Twitter marked the clip, which showed a black toddler fleeing a “ racist ” white boy, as “ manipulated media ”.
The video had been edited to look like a CNN package. He was showing the black child running in the opposite direction to the white boy with a fake CNN strap that said, “Breaking news. A terrified toddler runs away from a racist baby. Baby racist probably a Trump voter.
The photo is cut out on a black screen with the message “what really happened”. He then shows the two boys running towards each other on the street to kiss.
The real video, of the two boys – Maxwell and Finnegan – hugging on the street, went viral last year and recently resurfaced in joyful memes about finding friends and family when the coronavirus pandemic is finished.
It’s unclear who tweeted the edited version of Trump on Thursday night.
Scroll down for video
President Trump shared a tampered video with a CNN chyron on Thursday that reads: “ A terrified toddler is fleeing a racist baby. ” Trump’s tweet prompted Twitter to add a warning warning users that it was “ manipulated media. ” Disclaimer refers to a web page outlining Twitter’s policies regarding selectively edited clips
The second part of the chyron said “racist baby probably a Trump voter”. It never aired on CNN, but the video was edited to give the impression that it had
The clip is a selectively edited and spliced version of a viral video from last year showing two two-year-old boys – black and white – kissing
Trump tweeted the clip, which showed real footage of young Maxwell (above) running with open arms to kiss his friend Finnegan (below) in New York last fall, to criticize media coverage of racial tensions in America
The two boys are kissed in the clip that the president shared Thursday on social networks
Trump has been criticized for using a video featuring two young children to promote a political message.
The White House defended Trump’s tweet as sarcastic and funny.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Trump was making “ a pretty funny satirical point ” and noted that his tweet was specifically aimed at CNN, a television station the president regularly broadcasts as bogus news.
“The president made a satirical remark which was funny enough if you were going to watch the video,” she said during her press briefing on Friday.
Twitter marked the tweet as “ manipulated media ” just hours after Facebook banned advertisements for the president’s re-election campaign, which they said included a symbol used by the Nazis.
The true story behind the edited viral video of two two-year-old “ besties ” posted by Trump as the father of a boy
President Trump used a deceptively edited video of two toddlers on Thursday to claim that CNN was distorting coverage of racial tension in America.
But the video was first published last fall. The two little boys who melted hearts in the video are seen running towards each other with open arms for a big hug.
Maxwell and Finnegan became best friends after their parents met in a New York restaurant and have been “inseparable” ever since.
Maxwell and Finnegan became best friends after parents met in New York restaurant
Now the kids are such firm friends that the two families are moving together to the north of the state, Maxwell Hanson’s father Michael Cisneros told DailyMail.com last September.
In the adorable clip shared last fall, Maxwell and his friend Finnegan, both two years old and one month apart, can both run around laughing and laughing.
Maxwell Hanson was returning home from Brooklyn daycare with his fathers Alex, 39, and Michael when they ran into Finnegan and his father, Dan.
Speaking to DailyMail.com, Michael, 43, said, “We really got along with his parents, so we started spending time together and their friendship just blossomed.
“Once they saw each other, they immediately started running towards each other, and that’s when I took out my camera.”
The two boys would share the love of Disney, watch Moana, Coco and The Lion King together, and live one block from each other.
Michael, who adopted Maxwell as a newborn with his partner Alex, added: “ Her parents and we met just over a year ago and were really connected.
“They are always super excited to see each other, even if they are only a party. They are partners in crime and when one does something, the other does.
“We have a place in the north with a swimming pool, and Finnegan and his parents often come with us.”
Michael said the boys are now sharing their toys, food and clothes and even “communicating with each other in a way we don’t understand”.
He added, “And every time they are separated, they ask each other. It really is the cutest thing.
Finnegan is described by Michael as “the most outgoing,” while his son Maxwell “is a bit shy until he gets to know someone.” But he added, “They’re both super active.”
The two boys share the love of Disney and live one block from each other. “They communicate with each other in a way we don’t understand,” says Maxwell’s father Michael
CNN reacted angrily to the president’s tweet Thursday evening and said the president “tweeted fake videos that exploit innocent children.”
‘CNN covered this story – but exactly as it happened. Just like CNN reported your race positions (and your poll numbers).
“ We will continue to work with the facts and invite you to do the same, rather than tweeting fake videos that exploit innocent children. Be better, ”said a spokesperson.
A Twitter spokesperson told CNN, “This Tweet has been labeled according to our synthetic media policy and manipulated to give people more context.”
Michael Cisneros, who adopted Maxwell who is featured in the video as a newborn, went to Facebook on Thursday to criticize Trump.
He wrote: “ He (Trump) will not transform this beautiful loving video to advance his hate program. ”
On Wednesday evening, the DOJ revealed its intention to limit the legal protections of major technology platforms against prosecution.
The Justice Department unveiled proposals on Wednesday to limit legal protections for big tech platforms from content moderation suits – a move following Trump’s accusations that the Conservatives would be “ censored ” by web giants.
Attorney General Bill Barr’s proposals would dilute the ability of Internet platforms such as Google, Facebook or Twitter to declare content “objectionable” and to remove or minimize it at will.
The Tories say the platforms have used this protection to censor their opinions, including those of Trump, in a growing row on what they say is an attempt to stifle their point of view.
But web giants claim that extended immunities – which are encapsulated in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 are essential to the existence of the modern Internet and negate anti-conservative prejudice.
The plans are outlined in a document that seeks to amend the law, which means that it is subject to both the House and the Senate to take the proposals.
The Democrat-controlled House is unlikely to accept a Republican proposal, and in the Senate it should either be tabled by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, or forced to the agenda with 60 votes, which does not seem likely. during an election year.
But pushing for reform is a key part of Trump and his administration’s call to the Conservatives, and would also be used as a campaign ground to vote for Republicans in the legislative elections.
Currently, article 230 protects Internet platforms against any legal action for any content posted on them.
It also allows platforms to freely delete or moderate the content they declare “reprehensible” without the people concerned being able to request compensation.
There are no limits to what Google or others may call “objectionable”, nor is there an obligation to explain in advance what they might define that way, or how.
In the past few weeks, platforms have used this power to suppress articles on the coronavirus and demonstrations following the death of George Floyd who they say spread false statements or instigated violence and racial division.
The Department of Justice’s proposals would change the law to redefine much more restrictively the term “objectionable” as “illegal” or “promoting terrorism”.
The DOJ said in its discussion paper that this would end “the ability of a platform to remove content arbitrarily or in a manner inconsistent with its terms or services simply by deeming it” objectionable “.
The second part of the change would say that the abolition or moderation of positions must be “in good faith”, which means that any censorship was “in accordance with simple and specific conditions of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation”.
Earlier this month, Twitter removed a Trump campaign video featuring images of the George Floyd protests due to a copyright claim.
The president reacted angrily, accusing Twitter of “fighting hard for the radical left democrats” and of waging a “unilateral battle” which he described as “illegal”.
Trump also referred to section 230.
Trump made the comments in a Twitter post linking to a report on Twitter and Facebook’s decision to delete the clip.
Last month, Twitter posted fact-checking warnings on two tweets from Trump’s own account that called the ballots fraudulent and predicted problems with the November elections.
Under the tweets, there is now a link that reads “ Get the facts on the postal ballots ” which guides users to a Twitter “ moments ” page with fact checks and assertion news unsubstantiated from Trump.
Maxwell’s father says president uses video to “ promote hate program ”
He also demoted and placed a stronger warning on a third Trump tweet on the Minneapolis protests that said in part that “ when looting begins, filming begins. ”
Michael D. Cisneros with his son Maxwell
Twitter said the tweet violated platform rules by glorifying violence.
Trump has long spoken out against liberal biases among social media companies.
On May 28, Trump signed an executive order to remove legal protections from social media companies, which he accused of political bias.
The order could open Twitter, Facebook and Google to lawsuits by diluting the legal protection that prevents them from being responsible for the publications on their platforms, and that also allows them to moderate the content.
Trump’s executive order has stated that websites such as Twitter and Facebook “ have immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events. ”
Twitter said the order was a political decision that violated freedom of expression.
Targets: Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook and Jack Dorsey’s Twitter would be protected from legal action if they censored certain views that were diluted
Twitter posted a blue exclamation mark alert under two of Trump’s tweets about the potential for postal voting fraud, a move that made the president angry and led the administration to try to crack down on big tech companies
Earlier this month, the president accused Twitter of “ fighting hard for the radical left democrats ” and of having fought a “ unilateral battle ” which he described as illegal. reference to “ article 230 ” – short for article 230 of the 1996 Decency Law communication, which protects social media companies from legal liability for content published by third-party users of their platforms
Video shared by Trump campaign Twitter account has been disabled “ in response to copyright owner’s report, ” the message said for him.
Trump originally posted this message on Twitter and Facebook just before 1 a.m. on May 29. The tweet was controversial due to the reference to “ when looting begins, filming begins ”
Facebook, which has been severely criticized by many, including its own employees, for leaving the post of “ gunfire ” unchanged, removed political ads from Trump’s campaign Thursday, claiming they violate politics of the company against “ organized hatred ”.
The 88 ads featured an inverted red triangle, a symbol used by the Nazis to mark political prisoners in concentration camps during World War II, but the Trump campaign said it was simply an “ emoji ”
“We have deleted these messages and advertisements for violating our policy against organized hatred,” Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement.
“Our policy prohibits using the symbol of a prohibited hate group to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol.”
The Trump campaign has declared the red triangle to be an “ antifa symbol ”.
“The inverted red triangle is a symbol used by Antifa, so it was included in an advertisement on Antifa. We would like to note that Facebook is still using an inverted red triangle emoji, which looks exactly the same, so it’s curious that they are only targeting this ad, ” Trump campaign manager Tim Murtaugh said in a statement. .
This is an unusual move by Facebook, which tried to steer clear of the debate over the responsibilities of social media platforms for misinformation and hate speech.
Trump shared the video Thursday from a pro-Trump account called CarpeDonktum.
The 88 ads featured an inverted red triangle, a symbol used by the Nazis to mark political prisoners in concentration camps during World War II
Last year, the CarpeDonkum account was briefly suspended by Twitter after a video on the account portrayed the president slaughtering a group of journalists and political opponents.
AG Bill Barr’s Justice Department unveiled plans to change the law after Donald Trump said conservative views were suppressed by web giants
The video was shown at a rally of President’s supporters last October at the Trump National Doral Miami.
The video, which was posted on the Internet by Trump supporters, is an edited version of the church massacre scene from the dark comedy film Kingsman: The Secret Service in 2014, starring Colin Firth.
It shows the head of Trump superimposed on the body of Firth as he enters the “ church of false news ”, where the faithful represent the main American media like NBC, National Public Radio, Huffington Post, Politico, Vox, Vice News, The Hill, BuzzFeed News, and others.
Trump then continues to go wild, using a pistol and a lance to shoot and stab the parishioners.
ARTICLE 230: THE TRUMP LAW IS IMPOSED ON MORE SOCIAL MEDIA CLAIMS
Twenty-six hidden words in a 1996 telecommunications overhaul law have allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to become the giants they are today.
These are the words that President Donald Trump challenged Thursday in an executive order, which would remove these protections if online platforms engaged in “ editorial decisions ” – including, in the president’s opinion, adding a fact-checking warning to one of Trump’s tweets.
Under US law, Internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material that users post on their networks. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996 – which itself is part of a broader telecommunications law – provides a legal “refuge” for Internet companies.
But Trump and other politicians argue that Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms have abused this protection and should lose their immunity – or at least must deserve it by meeting government requirements.
Item 230 probably cannot be easily disassembled. But if it were, the Internet as we know it could cease to exist.
What is section 230?
If a news site falsely calls you a crook, you can sue the publisher for libel. But if someone posts this on Facebook, you can’t sue the company – just the person who posted it.
This is thanks to Article 230, which states that “no supplier or user of an interactive IT service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of the information provided by another information content provider”.
This legal term protects companies that can host thousands of billions of messages from legal action by anyone who feels aggrieved by something someone else has posted – whether or not their complaint is legitimate.
Article 230 also allows social platforms to moderate their services by deleting messages that, for example, are obscene or violate their own service standards, as long as they act in “good faith”.
Where does section 230 come from?
The history of the measure dates back to the 1950s, when bookstore owners were held responsible for the sale of books containing “obscenity”, which is not protected by the First Amendment. A case finally ended up in the Supreme Court, which held that it created a “deterrent effect” to hold someone responsible for someone else’s content.
This meant that the complainants had to prove that the bookstore owners knew they were selling obscene books, said Jeff Kosseff, the author of “ The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, ” a book on the article. 230.
Fast forward a few decades as the commercial Internet took off with services like CompuServe and Prodigy. Both offered online forums, but CompuServe chose not to moderate them, while Prodigy, looking for a family image, did.
CompuServe has been prosecuted on this matter and the matter has been closed. Prodigy, however, got into trouble. In their case, the judge ruled that “they have editorial control – so you’re more like a newspaper than a newsstand,” said Kosseff.
This did not suit politicians, who feared that this result would discourage new Internet companies from moderating. And article 230 was born.
“Today it protects both the responsibility for user posts and the responsibility for clams for content moderation,” said Kosseff.
What happens if article 230 is limited or disappears?
“I don’t think social media companies would exist in their current form without section 230,” said Kosseff. “They have based their business models on large platforms for user content.”
There are two possible outcomes. Platforms could become more cautious, as Craigslist did after the 2018 adoption of a sex trafficking law that created an exception to section 230 for material that “ promotes or facilitates prostitution ” . Craigslist quickly removed its “ Dating ” section, which was not intended to facilitate sex work. But the company did not want to take any risks.
This result could not actually hurt anyone other than the president himself, who regularly attacks private figures, feeds conspiracy theories and accuses others of crimes.
“If the platforms were not immune from the law, they would not risk the legal liability that could result from hosting Donald Trump’s lies, defamation and threats,” said counselor Kate Ruane legislative branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Another possibility: Facebook, Twitter and other platforms could completely abandon moderation and let the lower common denominator prevail.
These unsupervised services could easily end up being dominated by trolls, like 8chan, which is infamous for its graphic and extremist content, said Eric Goldman, professor of law at the University of Santa Clara. Canceling section 230 would be “an existential threat to the Internet,” he said.
But Goldman doesn’t see the White House order as this kind of threat to the Internet, saying it’s a “ political theater ” that will appeal to Trump supporters. “The president cannot override Congress,” he said.