Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trump was banned from a handful of social media platforms for being an asshole.By volume he's banned by probably over 80% of social media, and the ones he are on are facing shutdown fights by leftists against their hosting servers.
He was shutdown for politics, nothing more or less.
Do you want to win so bad that you are willing to have an unfair election vis a vis access of a candidate to the public?
Social media has a choice, either be honest about being biased and lose their protection on content, or be truly open platforms.
We used to have enough shared values that the occasional jerk complaining about the American flag being raised over Iwo Jima would be ignored if not laughed out of the room
but lib culture is dividing America into many small parts in conflict with each other
Trump was banned from a handful of social media platforms for being an asshole.
Access to candidates is a ridiculous assertion. There's no limitation to access to him. He's not banned from the internet.
You didn't answer the question. Are you okay with government forcing social media platforms to publish Trump's content specifically because he is (hypothetically) the nominee in 2024?
He was promoting the big lie which led to violence. He repeatedly violated the rules. Repeatedly. Anyone who did what he did would have been kicked off ages ago. They actually let him break the rules for a long time before enough was enough.That wasn't what they said. It was for supposedly "promoting violence" over Jan 6th when he did no such thing, and actually told the people to be peaceful.
I am OK with the government regulating them to allow any political discourse in the interest in the national good, and in line with governments already established control of the airwaves.
Regulating, not forcing. They wouldn't be impacted financially, and they actually would be isolated from liability.
By volume he's banned by probably over 80% of social media, and the ones he are on are facing shutdown fights by leftists against their hosting servers.
He was shutdown for politics, nothing more or less.
Do you want to win so bad that you are willing to have an unfair election vis a vis access of a candidate to the public?
Social media has a choice, either be honest about being biased and lose their protection on content, or be truly open platforms.
He was promoting the big lie which led to violence. He repeatedly violated the rules. Repeatedly. Anyone who did what he did would have been kicked off ages ago. They actually let him break the rules for a long time before enough was enough.
So if the government were to say fine social media a quarter million dollars a day if they don't let Trump onto Twitter if he's the nominee, that would be wrong. Correct? You're being cagey about this so I'm giving you a very specific "hypothetical" since you are claiming they wouldn't be "financially" impacted, lets say the government were to cause financial impact.
Canadians ( you for instance ) should mind their own businessYou didn't used to claim that everything you don't like about America was the result of Democrats. Or call them "Demonrats" or any of the other hate speech you use when talking about your fellow Americans. Right wing media has completely brainwashed Republicans against Democrats, the MSM, and the federal government.
There was a piece in the Globe and Mail last week that the USA is headed for civil war and what should Canada do when, not if, it happens. The crazy is just that strong and I see it every day on this board.
A lot of cites have sign size ordnances. I have been to a lot where the Golden Arches had to be small.
Would you feel the same if a person in the house next to you painted a huge mural on the side of their house honoring Che or Mao or maybe they are wiccans and paint a huge pentagram on the house?
The candidates do have access to the public. They have the largest news network in the USA willingly giving him all the time he wants, and allowing him to lie about the election and anything else he wants to lie about.
Instead of trying to protect your client's right to mislead the public and claim the election is stolen, you should be insisting that your side STOP LYING, and try to win the election honestly.
Is it that hard to stop the lying? Can you not win elections by telling the voters the truth?
Joe Biden isn't senile. The election wasn't stolen. Biden was elected in a free and fair election. Why do YOU insist on being allowed to lie? Can't you win elections by being honest?
I'm not asking for "why", I'm asking if you're okay with the government fining social media for not keeping political candidates on their platforms. You are being cagey because you're not answering this question.Bullshit. The old "Your speech is violence" line SJW's love. Inciting violence is very specific, just having the idea that there were problems with the election isn't inciting violence.
Why fine? Just either remove content protections so people defamed can sue the social media giants, Or tell them they can't ban people for content and the government takes the liability.
I'm not being cagey, I'm saying social media is the new digital commons, and restricting some people's access due to politics is the same as stopping them from speaking in the political square.
Should TV networks be able to reject advertisements from Trump as well?
I'm not asking for "why", I'm asking if you're okay with the government fining social media for not keeping political candidates on their platforms. You are being cagey because you're not answering this question.
So are you okay with that or not?
Because that's what the government decided to do. They decided to fine them. Is that okay with you or not?Why would they have to fine them? They would clear them of content liability, enlarge their account signups, and make them the true "open" platforms they want to be.
The government wouldn't have to fine them, the enforcement mechanism would be people denied access suing the platform for denying their access rights.
Because that's what the government decided to do. They decided to fine them. Is that okay with you or not?
I think this is the fourth time I've asked the question and you keep avoiding answering it. Don't pretend you aren't being cagey. You are. Get some courage and see if you can answer it.
Who did they fine?
You got a link to what the fuck you are droning on about?
It's a hypothetical. Is there something about the question you don't understand? You seem to have a hard time answering. This isn't like you. You're smarter than this.Who did they fine?
You got a link to what the fuck you are droning on about?
No, it is a troll. Ignore it.
It's a hypothetical. Is there something about the question you don't understand? You seem to have a hard time answering. This isn't like you. You're smarter than this.
Is that okay with you or not?
You are not answering the question. The question is whether you're okay with fines for not keeping candidates on their platforms. You are not providing an answer.You implied it had happened already in your post, and now claim hypothetical?
I answered you. Regulate social media companies using US controlled communications bandwidth to not discriminate based on content. Enforce the 1st amendment onto them, and let people they fuck over seek redress in the courts.
No fines needed.
All you're doing is running away from a question you don't want to answer. You're demonstrating your own weakness.I like keeping Colfucks going in circles, It's just as fun as messing with SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED was years ago.
You are not answering the question. The question is whether you're okay with fines for not keeping candidates on their platforms. You are not providing an answer.
I'm not asking what you would do. I'm asking if you think a very specific proposal to fine social medial companies is okay with you.
