Censorship

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Is Google, Twitter and FaceBook's censorship the same thing as Book Burning?

 

[Dick Foster]

Is Google, Twitter and FaceBook's censorship the same thing as Book Burning?

View attachment 368731
View attachment 368732

Yes indeed it is. It's absolutely Orwellian.

 

[aaronleland]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

 

[Pogo]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

Oops, too late.

 

[aaronleland]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

If a publisher refuses to publish your book you go to a publisher who will.

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

If a publisher refuses to publish your book you go to a publisher who will.

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

it is censorship

 

[HenryBHough]

Let me say this about censorship:

(not here you don't!)​

 

[aaronleland]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

If a publisher refuses to publish your book you go to a publisher who will.

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

it is censorship

Yeah. Private websites censor things sometimes. You're on one that does it. It's not the same as the government eradicating information that they deem harmful.

 

[Juicey Omelette]

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

But that is essentially what a website is doing..when it doesn't allow certain posts solely due to their own bias, agenda and/or need to protect a political narrative.

Plus we know all of them do this(Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc).. just to prevent other people's views from being expressed.

They do this even when they have to go against their own guidelines. Or arbitrarily change the rules, so they can apply them as their bias sees fit.

We are quickly reaching the point (if we haven't already) where all of the large influential tech and social media platforms in our society will not allow certain political views, opinions, facts and narratives to be heard.

If that isn't a form of censorship..I don't know what is.

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."-George Orwell

We have lost that right in many, if not most of our public spaces online and elsewhere.

I never thought I would see the day when leftists in this country would become so authoritarian, and welcome in the death of free speech.

 

[Dick Foster]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

If a publisher refuses to publish your book you go to a publisher who will.

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

it is censorship

Yeah. Private websites censor things sometimes. You're on what that does it. It's not the same as the government eradicating information that they deem harmful.

So you're saying that they are meerly a private business enterprise and as such do NOT enjoy the protection the 1st amendment affords legitimate press? I just want to be clear that we have all the proper rules in place before we play this game. Also as a private enterpise they are clearly covered by and nmust operated under existing antitrust laws and regulations. They may also be covered under the rules and regulations administered by the FCC.

 

[boedicca]

It's more analogous to the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China, aimed at purging "old ideaa" etc. If you don't conform, you will be cancelled.

 

[Pogo]

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

But that is essentially what a website is doing..when it doesn't allow certain posts solely due to their own bias, and/or need to protect a political narrative.

Plus we know all of them do this(Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc).. just to prevent other people's views from being expressed.

They do this even when they have to go against their own guidelines. Or arbitrarily change the rules so they can apply them as their bias sees fit.

We are quickly reaching the point (if we haven't already) where all of the large influential tech and social media platforms in our society will not allow certain political views, opinions, facts and narratives to be heard.

If that isn't a form of censorship..I don't know what is.

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."-George Orwell

We have lost that right in many, if not most of our public spaces online and elsewhere.

I never thought I would see the day when leftists in this country would become so authoritarian, and welcome in the death of free speech.

I myself am (proudly) banned from "CNS News" and Jim The Fuck Hoft's wackadoodle site. That's because I called them out on bullshit and that threatens them. Exactly as you describe above.

I also understand that those sites are their personal sites and not the government. And that in banning me from their sites, they admit their weaker positions.

 

[Pogo]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

If a publisher refuses to publish your book you go to a publisher who will.

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

it is censorship

Yeah. Private websites censor things sometimes. You're on what that does it. It's not the same as the government eradicating information that they deem harmful.

So you're saying that they are meerly a private business enterprise and as such do NOT enjoy the protection the 1st amendment affords legitimate press? I just want to be clear that we have all the proper rules in place before we play this game. Also as a private enterpise they are clearly covered by and nmust operated under existing antitrust laws and regulations. They may also be covered under the rules and regulations administered by the FCC.

Fecesbook is in NO way the fucking "press". It's a fucking graffiti wall. Don't be absurd.

Further the FCC has no jurisdiction. And even in those areas (broadcasting) where it does have jurisdiction it has none over content. Nor should it.

 

[aaronleland]

Any website deleting any post IS censorship. It's not the same thing as eradicating ideas, like the Nazis tried by burning books. You can write your own book, or start your own website at any time, and the government can't do anything to stop you. Conservatives write books, and start websites all the time.

 

[aaronleland]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

If a publisher refuses to publish your book you go to a publisher who will.

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

it is censorship

Yeah. Private websites censor things sometimes. You're on what that does it. It's not the same as the government eradicating information that they deem harmful.

So you're saying that they are meerly a private business enterprise and as such do NOT enjoy the protection the 1st amendment affords legitimate press? I just want to be clear that we have all the proper rules in place before we play this game. Also as a private enterpise they are clearly covered by and nmust operated under existing antitrust laws and regulations. They may also be covered under the rules and regulations administered by the FCC.

Social media sites are not the press. They're a bunch of retards posting online. They're no more the press than USMB is.

 

[Pogo]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

If a publisher refuses to publish your book you go to a publisher who will.

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

it is censorship

Yeah. Private websites censor things sometimes. You're on what that does it. It's not the same as the government eradicating information that they deem harmful.

So you're saying that they are meerly a private business enterprise and as such do NOT enjoy the protection the 1st amendment affords legitimate press? I just want to be clear that we have all the proper rules in place before we play this game. Also as a private enterpise they are clearly covered by and nmust operated under existing antitrust laws and regulations. They may also be covered under the rules and regulations administered by the FCC.

Social media sites are not the press. They're a bunch of retards posting online. They're no more the press than USMB is.

Even less.
Because here, if you post historical bullshit, somebody will call it out.

 

[Juicey Omelette]

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

But that is essentially what a website is doing..when it doesn't allow certain posts solely due to their own bias, and/or need to protect a political narrative.

Plus we know all of them do this(Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc).. just to prevent other people's views from being expressed.

They do this even when they have to go against their own guidelines. Or arbitrarily change the rules so they can apply them as their bias sees fit.

We are quickly reaching the point (if we haven't already) where all of the large influential tech and social media platforms in our society will not allow certain political views, opinions, facts and narratives to be heard.

If that isn't a form of censorship..I don't know what is.

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."-George Orwell

We have lost that right in many, if not most of our public spaces online and elsewhere.

I never thought I would see the day when leftists in this country would become so authoritarian, and welcome in the death of free speech.

I myself am (proudly) banned from "CNS News" and Jim The Fuck Hoft's wackadoodle site. That's because I called them out on bullshit and that threatens them. Exactly as you describe above.

I also understand that those sites are their personal sites and not the government. And that in banning me from their sites, they admit their weaker positions.

We aren't talking about some singular individual's private website, bro. It's a bit larger than that..No one cares if some wingnut gets banned from wherever site, no ones heard of.

We are talking about the largest platforms to ever exist (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, etc..) that yield the most cultural, political and societal influence in the history of man.

These massive platforms should not go about unfairly banning/censoring stuff like this-https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/07/28/facebook_and_youtube_ban_video_of_doctors_talking_covid_silenced_doctors_hold_press_conference.html

And it's obvious why they are doing this..because it goes against the orange man bad narrative and it's an election year. We can't have people finding out Trump was right about hydroxychloroquine. Then they might start asking themselves.."What else has Trump been right about?"

Removing video links like the one highlighted in what I shared is wrong, and is indeed censorship. Because they are not applying their own rules across the board, or following their own guidelines.

 

[Pogo]

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

But that is essentially what a website is doing..when it doesn't allow certain posts solely due to their own bias, and/or need to protect a political narrative.

Plus we know all of them do this(Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc).. just to prevent other people's views from being expressed.

They do this even when they have to go against their own guidelines. Or arbitrarily change the rules so they can apply them as their bias sees fit.

We are quickly reaching the point (if we haven't already) where all of the large influential tech and social media platforms in our society will not allow certain political views, opinions, facts and narratives to be heard.

If that isn't a form of censorship..I don't know what is.

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."-George Orwell

We have lost that right in many, if not most of our public spaces online and elsewhere.

I never thought I would see the day when leftists in this country would become so authoritarian, and welcome in the death of free speech.

I myself am (proudly) banned from "CNS News" and Jim The Fuck Hoft's wackadoodle site. That's because I called them out on bullshit and that threatens them. Exactly as you describe above.

I also understand that those sites are their personal sites and not the government. And that in banning me from their sites, they admit their weaker positions.

We aren't talking some singular individual's private website, bro. It's a bit larger than that..No one cares if some wingnut gets banned from wherever site, no ones heard of.

We are talking about the largest platforms to ever exist (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, etc..) that yield the most cultural, political and societal influence in the history of man.

When these massive platforms go about unfairly banning/censoring stuff like this-https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/07/28/facebook_and_youtube_ban_video_of_doctors_talking_covid_silenced_doctors_hold_press_conference.html

And it's obvious why they are doing this..because it goes against the orange man bad narrative and it's an election year. We can't have people finding out Trump was right about hydroxychloroquine. Then they might start asking themselves.."What else has Trump been right about?"

That's not right and is indeed censorship. Because they are not applying their own rules across the board, or following their own guidelines.

Your argument is "size matters"? Seriously??

What a whiff.

Try posting something here about bestiality, or pedophilia, or somebody's family, on this site. See how far you get.

Y'all are like a toddler walking a picket line carrying "Mom's a fascist" sign because she won't let you throw food around the kitchen. Fer fuxsake get a life.

 

[Dick Foster]

No. Not at all. Don't be retarded.

What is it then?

If a publisher refuses to publish your book you go to a publisher who will.

If a website deletes your posts you go to a website that will allow them.

Nobody is burning your internet posts.

it is censorship

Yeah. Private websites censor things sometimes. You're on what that does it. It's not the same as the government eradicating information that they deem harmful.

So you're saying that they are meerly a private business enterprise and as such do NOT enjoy the protection the 1st amendment affords legitimate press? I just want to be clear that we have all the proper rules in place before we play this game. Also as a private enterpise they are clearly covered by and nmust operated under existing antitrust laws and regulations. They may also be covered under the rules and regulations administered by the FCC.

Fecesbook is in NO way the fucking "press". It's a fucking graffiti wall. Don't be absurd.

Further the FCC has no jurisdiction. And even in those areas (broadcasting) where it does have jurisdiction it has none over content. Nor should it.

Why would the FCC have no jurisdiction? They are using bandwidth that is carried over the airwaves which have long been said to belong to the public and thus are regulated by the gubberment. The FCC also regulates communications carried over telephone lines. It doesn't matter how you choose to slice the loaf, the FCC does have jurisdiction over these assholes.