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.
Wow, you have no idea what ruling was handed down today, do you? It’s cute that you think that will happen.Trump declares negative posts about him on social media as misinformation and force social media to remove the postings. Careful what you wish for.
Passing bipartisan legislation really isn’t in Trump’s wheelhouse. He spends too much time trashing his opponents to be able to lead them in a coalition.
It’s a fact that lots of things COULD happen. Doesn’t make it likely.
Saying he can legally force people to do something is an absurd stretch.
Of course it is.You probably should believe less of what you read. The government is not some overwhelming authoritarian beast.
That’s been testified to by those involved.Yes, I’d like to see you take any one of those and show how the government lied or censored any of those points
Not according to Trumps Supreme Court. Where are you getting these accusations from?Let’s see we can use reality and determine once Joe was president he was asking social media companies to censor information his administration didn’t approve of. You know how it actually happened
He didn’t put anything in that laptop you hack.We don’t know who/what the laptop repair guy put onto the laptop before he turned it over to Rudy Guliani...or who influenced him to do it.
You have not clue as to what that ruling was about.Wow, you have no idea what ruling was handed down today, do you? It’s cute that you think that will happen.
What the SCOTUS said was that the government can contact social media companies. Whether the social media companies listen or take action or not...that is up to them.
Nobody trust your blob so he can whine all he wants.
When stated baldly like that, it's a lie. The vaccine was, and is effective..most of the time. Good enough for me.What ‘misinformation’? That Covid shots don’t prevent transmission? That ‘misinformation’?
You're saying the the Feds are not allowed to advocate for the common weal? I would think that that is their job~As they should be allowed to do, it just should not be done at the urging of the US Fed Govt.
Can you show an example?That’s been testified to by those involved.
Social media is exactly like a church door.You have not clue as to what that ruling was about.
I read the ruling and, unlike yourself, I can comprehend what I read.You have not clue as to what that ruling was about.
Now you went full retard. You didn’t read the ruling. You went off the MSNBC / CNN spinI read the ruling and, unlike yourself, I can comprehend what I read.
Your results may vary because you're head is so far up your ass that you have to look out of your navel.
Science? Like a man being a man, and a woman being a woman? That science?When stated baldly like that, it's a lie. The vaccine was, and is effective..most of the time. Good enough for me.
You seem to think that the only acceptable rubric is 100% prevention. I like to measure the vaccine by the lives it saved.
Of course, you don't buy any of this..science stuff. Right?
Vaccines prevented up to 140,000 COVID-19 deaths in U.S.
A study estimated that COVID-19 vaccinations prevented nearly 140,000 deaths in the U.S. by May 2021.www.nih.gov
Their “job” is what the constitution says it is….nothing more, nothing less…You're saying the the Feds are not allowed to advocate for the common weal? I would think that that is their job~
The Supreme Court on Wednesday shot down a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its efforts to urge social media companies to take down alleged misinformation about Covid-19, election fraud and other topics.
Two red states and five social media users do not have legal standing to sue various federal officials over their communications with the tech platforms, the court held in a 6-3 ruling.
The court’s majority — which consisted of three conservative justices and three liberals — said that the role of the social media companies in establishing and enforcing their content-moderation policies meant the plaintiffs weren’t directly censored by the government. The majority also noted that the social media platforms were not named as defendants in the case.
The pressure of being shut down!Was it this kind of pressure?
Trump asked Twitter to take down ‘derogatory’ tweet from Chrissy Teigen: whistleblower
Then-President Trump asked Twitter to take down a tweet from model and television personality Chrissy Teigen in 2019 because he saw it as “derogatory,” according to testimony from a Twitter whistle…www.google.com
Navaroli testified that her supervisors told her and her team that the platform received “something of a request” from Trump to take down a tweet that Teigen posted criticizing him.
“In that particular instance, I do remember hearing that we had received a request from the White House to make sure that we evaluated this tweet and that they wanted it to come down because it was a derogatory statement directed toward the president,” Navaroli said.
The pressure of being shut down!
What kind of pressure. Be specific. How did the gib force these companies to do anything?
