do dems believe the censoring of conservative speech by social media giants is ok ?

[Skylar]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

You have no right to someone else's platform. I post here, for example.....but the board mods could (but usually don't) scrap any post they don't like. And they're perfectly within their rights to do so.

The 1st amendment has jack shit to do with Facebook.

But would you stay? Who would stay on such a terrible site that did that a lot?

I have no right to someone else's platform. I own several websites of my own....and no one but me has a right to post there either.

You get that you have no 'right' to post on facebook, twitter or anywhere else, yes? That the 1st amendment has nothing to do with any of that?

 

[yidnar]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

I do think they are being a little too strict at times really. There was a video from the Trump campaign they supposedly banned. I saw it on one of the platforms with the banner saying (It was banned...). So I don't know but...if it was...I don't know why.

Who determines truth and honesty? You? Who should be appointed as the "Truth Police."

The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.

the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....

They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).

tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....

 

[yidnar]

Now that the whole fox news experiment is over, wouldn't you guys agree that it would have been better if there had not been this split that resulted in FOX and MSNBC? Better from the stand point of there not being two alternate universes of facts?

That's just...stupid.

Fox is failing because it's swung leftward.

Get woke, go broke.

Hopefully MSNBC will fail too in short order.

And maybe, just maybe, single source morons like yourself can become better informed. You just may learn something...

where do you get your info ......please tell us so we can be informed and woke like you are.

NPR, AP, CNN. When I want "deep dives" I call up Slate or The Atlantic and NPR has some good in depth reporting from time to time that doesn't make it on their airwaves due to length.

I really don't know how anyone sits there and watches the news any more...I listen on the fly, go onto the websites and pick stories I want to hear, etc...

So...only far-left sources.

Gotta be honest...I'm not at all surprised.

The AP is not far left. Neither in NPR news.

 

[yidnar]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

Right now the conservatives have nothing but lies and conspiracy so I don't mind.

I suppose that's easier than thinking for yourself.

Being that law and order do not comport with lies and conspiracy coups then it should be no problem.

please dont lecture about law and order after the rioting you people have been doing lately.

 

[candycorn]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

I do think they are being a little too strict at times really. There was a video from the Trump campaign they supposedly banned. I saw it on one of the platforms with the banner saying (It was banned...). So I don't know but...if it was...I don't know why.

The problem becomes when they get to decide what is truth and what is not. Information should be posted and if it is false, it should be shown to be false. Simply removing it under the pretense that it's false when the information removed always agrees with the owner's political beliefs is a problem.

And they often provide a link to reputable internet pages about the toic.

Here is one such post by the blob:

View attachment 417314


Here is what happens when you click on the link...you get the data showing the claim is false.

View attachment 417315

Which is superior to the platform merely deleting stuff and claiming "It was wrong". Thank goodness we don't have a blob for president. That would be almost as scary as having a frail old man who has memory problems.

Okay...?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Now that the whole fox news experiment is over, wouldn't you guys agree that it would have been better if there had not been this split that resulted in FOX and MSNBC? Better from the stand point of there not being two alternate universes of facts?

That's just...stupid.

Fox is failing because it's swung leftward.

Get woke, go broke.

Hopefully MSNBC will fail too in short order.

And maybe, just maybe, single source morons like yourself can become better informed. You just may learn something...

where do you get your info ......please tell us so we can be informed and woke like you are.

NPR, AP, CNN. When I want "deep dives" I call up Slate or The Atlantic and NPR has some good in depth reporting from time to time that doesn't make it on their airwaves due to length.

I really don't know how anyone sits there and watches the news any more...I listen on the fly, go onto the websites and pick stories I want to hear, etc...

So you cherry pick

 

[candycorn]

Now that the whole fox news experiment is over, wouldn't you guys agree that it would have been better if there had not been this split that resulted in FOX and MSNBC? Better from the stand point of there not being two alternate universes of facts?

That's just...stupid.

Fox is failing because it's swung leftward.

Get woke, go broke.

Hopefully MSNBC will fail too in short order.

And maybe, just maybe, single source morons like yourself can become better informed. You just may learn something...

where do you get your info ......please tell us so we can be informed and woke like you are.

NPR, AP, CNN. When I want "deep dives" I call up Slate or The Atlantic and NPR has some good in depth reporting from time to time that doesn't make it on their airwaves due to length.

I really don't know how anyone sits there and watches the news any more...I listen on the fly, go onto the websites and pick stories I want to hear, etc...

So...only far-left sources.

Gotta be honest...I'm not at all surprised.

The AP is not far left. Neither in NPR news.

Is that a Newsmax anchor?

 

[Circe]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

You have no right to someone else's platform. I post here, for example.....but the board mods could (but usually don't) scrap any post they don't like. And they're perfectly within their rights to do so.

The 1st amendment has jack shit to do with Facebook.

But would you stay? Who would stay on such a terrible site that did that a lot?

I have no right to someone else's platform. I own several websites of my own....and no one but me has a right to post there either.

You get that you have no 'right' to post on facebook, twitter or anywhere else, yes? That the 1st amendment has nothing to do with any of that?

Sure, we understand we have no right to belong to a club that doesn't accept our membership, which is what you are talking about, I think. Sometimes there's even a paywall. Or you have to give a phone number, as Parler requires right now. If you don't, you don't get in: everyone accepts that.

That's not the issue at all. The problem is that once we have joined a site that supposedly promotes free speech, to have it censored and negatively labeled constantly is a revolting development! People NEVER signed up for that. This is something Twitter and Facebook just sprung on their members in the last few weeks. No wonder people are upset. Probably their sites will die. All the forums I've seen that suddenly decide it's a good idea to do heavy-handed "moderation" (censorship) are dead as doorknobs now. Because if you can't say what you want to say, what's the point in going there?

 

[candycorn]

I was on Twitter today...plenty of blob posts had no "handle with care" shield attached. Many did.

What does "blob" mean? Binary Large OBject was the best BING could do for me.
Wow, I'm glad I left Twitter several years ago --- no WAY I'd stay on a site that is constantly putting insulting warning posts on my and other people's posts --- they are going to ruin their business model. I saw one of them here on a Trump post --- I think they are crazy to do that.

I think it’s responsible to censor the habitual disseminators of misinformation

 

[candycorn]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

I do think they are being a little too strict at times really. There was a video from the Trump campaign they supposedly banned. I saw it on one of the platforms with the banner saying (It was banned...). So I don't know but...if it was...I don't know why.

Who determines truth and honesty? You? Who should be appointed as the "Truth Police."

The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.

the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....

They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).

tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....

You’d have to ask them. I do know they did state that they would be more aggressive In the election season.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I just asked you about the crimes. You’ve reported no arrests, indictments etc....

I'm reminded of some very faintly-remembered line from some bit of fiction that I either read or saw in a movie or on TV, a very, very, very long time ago. A thief, trying to justify his behavior by saying something to the effect of “It's only stealin' if you get caught.”

That seems to be the logic that you're trying to use, here. You and I both know that certain individuals, who are pretty much “untouchable” by the law, have engaged in behavior which, if any of us “little people” were to engage in, we could expect to be arrested, tried, and thrown in prison. You're arguing that they didn't commit any crimes, cannot commit any crimes, because they cannot be caught.

 

[Circe]

I think it’s responsible to censor the habitual disseminators of misinformation

I'm okay with kicking out Russkies --- they were direly infesting all forums just a few years ago, but that seems to be under control now. I know there are organizations set up to propagandize --- I'd say censorship of organizations might be defensible. But no censorship of American individuals ----------- with the exception of people who like to send out videos of their mass murders and serial killings, and you know we've had several of those. Okay, that's my criterion. If it's an American (these are American companies and we invented the technology) who is not committing a crime on the books, s/he shouldn't be censored.

Okay, I realize it's a fraught issue and I can think of exceptions even to that. But warning labels on the president or any other individual is a pretty awful thing to do, IMO.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think it’s responsible to censor the

Of course, you do. But when you say, “habitual disseminators of misinformation”, every sane person reading your bullshit knows that what you really mean by that is people who are expressing legitimate opinions, and even hard, provable truths, that you do not like.

And what this really proves about you, is that you know taht you are completely full of shit, to the point that you have no hope of ever winning any argument legitimately and honestly, that you can only “win”, by cheating, by suppressing and censoring your opposition.

It proves that you are an intellectually-dishonest, cowardly piece of shit, as that is the only kind of subhuman who benefits from the sort of censorship that you openly and shamelessly defend.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

Unfortunately, the law is on the side of Twitter and Facebook. The first amendment does not apply to private property. This is a Sup Ct ruling. What I suggest as a tactic to pressure the media is to boycott them. They survive on advertising revenue. If we the consumers don't read those ads, the media will lose money bigtime.

Nothing ‘unfortunate’ about it.

Fortunately the First Amendment protects social media sites from unwarranted government preemption and regulation.

You don't know the law. In the case of a virtual monopoly like twitter and facebook have, the standards are different, just as they are for a public utility. Consumers have almost no choice but to use them and that makes them public. That's why their bosses are being called to appear before Congress. I expect some regulations in the near future.

meh, I don't have a twitter account, and if I hadn't signed up for Facebook the very first year it was around and know for a fact that you can never delete your account? I would get rid of it.

They aren't virtual monopolies. You can stay in contact with your friends via email, and have male relatives that don't own either of those. They aren't necessary.

And if you want to create a social community with your own friends and family, there are so many other choices. Hell, other nations and different social enclaves don't even used Facebook. My kid uses Instagram. In Southeast Asia, or was it Indonesia? I think they still use Myspace. Seriously, Myspace is still ranked like number six or seven, yet, no one in the west uses it anymore.

It's bullshit to think it is a "virtual" monopoly.

But all this whining will assure government stepping in, and then? Yeah, hell yeah it will BECOME a monopoly. That is exactly what these tech giants want!




This one was hard to find, it was deleted. I checked several different platforms.

It was here;

DTube

DTube is a community powered video sharing platform where users vote on videos to reward creators, curators, influencers and viewers in cryptocurrency

d.tube

But I couldn't get it to play.

This version played better.

James Corbett Interview - The Social Media Regulation Psyop

In a time of such obvious deceit and aggressive manipulation, not only by those who once sought our votes or our subservience, but today even by each other, unwittingly doing the bidding of those who seek to control our every purchase, our every cli…

www.bitchute.com

The Social Media Exodus Has Begun. Here's Where Everybody's Going.
Look at the date of this video!
•Jan 13, 2017

Monopoly or not, the problem is that they have protections as a platform but censor and edit as though they were a publisher.
Like a phone company cutting off your phone service because you spoke on the phone about evidence that criminally implicated Biden.

230 does NOT require platforms to be neutral however.

We do NOT want the government regulating these tech giants, doing so, will give them a de-facto monopoly. Did you even Read or Watch the content I posted? If you want the current giants to be the new standard oil, and to make sure they forever entrench socialism, just have the government regulate them, that will ensure your worse nightmares.

No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be “Neutral”

No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be “Neutral”

One jaw-dropping moment during the Senate’s hearing on Tuesday came when Sen. Ted Cruz asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, “Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?” Unsatisfied by Zuckerberg’s response that Facebook is a “platform for all ideas,” Sen. Cruz continued, “Are you a...

www.eff.org

". . . After more back-and-forth, Sen. Cruz said, “The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you’re a neutral public forum. Do you consider yourself a neutral public forum, or are you engaged in political speech, which is your right under the First Amendment?” It was a baffling question. Sen. Cruz seemed to be suggesting, incorrectly, that Facebook had to make a choice between enjoying protections for free speech under the First Amendment and enjoying the additional protections that Section 230 offers online platforms.

Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

Indeed, one of the reasons why Congress first passed Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts. In two important early cases over Internet speech, courts allowed civil defamation claims against Prodigy but not against Compuserve; since Prodigy deleted some messages for “offensiveness” and “bad taste,” a court reasoned, it could be treated as a publisher and held liable for its users’ posts. Former Rep. Chris Cox recalls reading about the Prodigy opinion on an airplane and thinking that it was “surpassingly stupid.” That revelation led to Cox and then Rep. Ron Wyden introducing the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, which would later become Section 230.

The misconception that platforms can somehow lose Section 230 protections for moderating users’ posts has gotten a lot of airtime lately—even serving as the flawed premise of a recent Wired cover story. It’s puzzling that Sen. Cruz would misrepresent one of the most important laws protecting online speech—particularly just a few days after he and his Senate colleagues voted nearly unanimously to undermine that law. (For the record, it’s also puzzling that Zuckerberg claimed not to be familiar with Section 230 when Facebook was one of the largest Internet companies lobbying to undermine it.)

The context of Sen. Cruz’s line of questioning offers some insight into why he misrepresented Section 230: like several Republican members of Congress in both hearings, Sen. Cruz was raising concerns about Facebook allegedly removing posts that represented conservative points of view more often than liberal ones.

There are many good reasons to be concerned about politically motivated takedowns of legitimate online speech. Around the world, the groups silenced on Facebook and other platforms are often those that are marginalized in other areas of public life too.

It’s foolish to suggest that web platforms should lose their Section 230 protections for failing to align their moderation policies to an imaginary standard of political neutrality. Trying to legislate such a “neutrality” requirement for online platforms—besides being unworkable—would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In practice, creating additional hoops for platforms to jump through in order to maintain their Section 230 protections would almost certainly result in fewer opportunities to share controversial opinions online, not more: under Section 230, platforms devoted to niche interests and minority views can thrive.

What’s needed to ensure that a variety of views have a place on social media isn’t creating more legal exceptions to Section 230. Rather, companies should institute reasonable, transparent moderation policies. Platforms shouldn’t over-rely on automated filtering and unintentionally silence legitimate speech and communities in the process. And platforms should add features to give users themselves—not platform owners or third parties—more control over what types of posts they see.. . . "

Time to revisit 230.
I think the breakup of big tech would be more like breaking up Ma Bell which resulted in ubiquitous phone company operations and cheaper rates.

 

[Blackrook]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

You’re not very observant.

If you were, you’d note that Democrats address the issue often, explaining to conservatives that censorship and the right to free speech concern solely the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private entities and private persons, such as social networks.

That as private entities, social networks are a liberty to edit their content as they see fit – where such editing constitutes neither a ‘violation’ of free speech nor ‘censorship.’

And that the internet is infinite – that there’s ample opportunity for conservatives to express their views and opinions.

Clayton you're such a fucking hypocrite. If social media was censoring your people you'd be up on a soapbox denouncing it.

Fuck you, and fuck all liberals.

 

[yidnar]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

I do think they are being a little too strict at times really. There was a video from the Trump campaign they supposedly banned. I saw it on one of the platforms with the banner saying (It was banned...). So I don't know but...if it was...I don't know why.

Who determines truth and honesty? You? Who should be appointed as the "Truth Police."

The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.

the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....

They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).

tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....

You’d have to ask them. I do know they did state that they would be more aggressive In the election season.

yeah more aggressive against conservatives.

 

[candycorn]

I think it’s responsible to censor the

Of course, you do. But when you say, “habitual disseminators of misinformation”, every sane person reading your bullshit knows that what you really mean by that is people who are expressing legitimate opinions, and even hard, provable truths, that you do not like.

And what this really proves about you, is that you know taht you are completely full of shit, to the point that you have no hope of ever winning any argument legitimately and honestly, that you can only “win”, by cheating, by suppressing and censoring your opposition.

It proves that you are an intellectually-dishonest, cowardly piece of shit, as that is the only kind of subhuman who benefits from the sort of censorship that you openly and shamelessly defend.

You can't even use profanity effectively.

Trump was posting lies to sway the outcome of an election. Twitter let him but put a warning on the tweet.

I frankly think they should ban him as they did Bannon myself.

As for my winning an argument, I'm usually pretty good at winning because you guys are so unarmed. I mean...look at your post above...all personal attacks and not very cogent ones at at that.

 

[candycorn]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

I do think they are being a little too strict at times really. There was a video from the Trump campaign they supposedly banned. I saw it on one of the platforms with the banner saying (It was banned...). So I don't know but...if it was...I don't know why.

Who determines truth and honesty? You? Who should be appointed as the "Truth Police."

The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.

the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....

They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).

tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....

You’d have to ask them. I do know they did state that they would be more aggressive In the election season.

yeah more aggressive against conservatives.

Trump is a conservative? LOL.

They are aggressive toward habitual disseminators of misinformation. Like your blob.

 

[yidnar]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

I do think they are being a little too strict at times really. There was a video from the Trump campaign they supposedly banned. I saw it on one of the platforms with the banner saying (It was banned...). So I don't know but...if it was...I don't know why.

Who determines truth and honesty? You? Who should be appointed as the "Truth Police."

The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.

the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....

They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).

tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....

You’d have to ask them. I do know they did state that they would be more aggressive In the election season.

yeah more aggressive against conservatives.

Trump is a conservative? LOL.

They are aggressive toward habitual disseminators of misinformation. Like your blob.

but not the Ayathollah it seems .....

 

[Circe]

Time to revisit 230.
I think the breakup of big tech would be more like breaking up Ma Bell which resulted in ubiquitous phone company operations and cheaper rates.

Yeah......I agree, it's time to break up Facebook, at least. They've gotten in too deep, over their heads, and what with the censorship on Facebook and Twitter, it's ugly and harmful and it's not viable, in my opinion.