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

Its a bit ironic that folk are whining about censorship on a forum that gives access to every foul right wing notion that you can shake a stick at. Isn t [sic] that the answer to your question ?

On a broader theme social media is in its infancy and will probably develop like other forms of communication. So you will see platforms emerge that are right or left leaning. But they will be shaped by the people with lots of money and not by people like you and me.

Once again, as seems to be his only purpose on this forum, Tainted Tommy vividly reminds us Americans why it is that we kicked the British filth out of our country almost two and a half centuries ago.

Freedom of speech was very specifically one of the issues over which we did so.
 
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? :lol: 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.

There was zero evidence for the three years of bullshit of Russian Collusion? Where was censorship then? The hypocrisy is stunning.
 
Last edited:
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? :lol: 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.

There wss zero evidence for the three years of bullshit of Russian Collusion? Where was censorship then? The hypocrisy is stunning.

Oh my goodness....

The US Senate--ran by Republicans--confirmed there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
 
Its a bit ironic that folk are whining about censorship on a forum that gives access to every foul right wing notion that you can shake a stick at. Isn t that the answer to your question ?

On a broader theme social media is in its infancy and will probably develop like other forms of communication. So you will see platforms emerge that are right or left leaning. But they will be shaped by the people with lots of money and not by people like you and me.
Because USMB exist, there is no censorship? :cuckoo:
If there was censorship then it wouldnt exist. That much should be obvious to the densest of the trumpers out there.

Speech is severely restricted in the UK. Try saying anything questioning the racial speech laws. Britain is fucked. I don't want my great Nation to become a herd of dickless, neutered, impotent sheep like the UK.

We crushed Britain years ago for restricting our rights and denying free speech. Then we had to save your pansy ass in two World Wars. Fucking cowards. Clean up your own shit.
 
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? :lol: 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.

There wss zero evidence for the three years of bullshit of Russian Collusion? Where was censorship then? The hypocrisy is stunning.

Oh my goodness....

The US Senate--ran by Republicans--confirmed there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Your God Mueller said different. No collusion, no crime. Fake. :113:
 
i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.
As long as it's in their favor they're all for censorship. Just as it was for Hitler and Stalin. We'll have more of the same please. It's their Orwellian dream come true.
 
r
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? :lol: 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.

There wss zero evidence for the three years of bullshit of Russian Collusion? Where was censorship then? The hypocrisy is stunning.

Oh my goodness....

The US Senate--ran by Republicans--confirmed there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Your God Mueller said different. No collusion, no crime. Fake. :113:
That's not what Mueller said. Trump said that and he was lying. You are just echoing his lies.
 
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? :lol: 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.

There wss zero evidence for the three years of bullshit of Russian Collusion? Where was censorship then? The hypocrisy is stunning.

Oh my goodness....

The US Senate--ran by Republicans--confirmed there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Your God Mueller said different. No collusion, no crime. Fake. :113:

That isn’t what Mueller’s report said.

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

That's bullshit, and I am sure that even you know it.

They're censoring things that are obvious truth,and giving a pass to blatant propaganda and misinformation that supports their degenerate left wrong-wing agenda.

What you mean by “stick to the truth and honesty”, is stick to the lies and nonsense that our masters tell us to believe, no matter how obvious it is that they are lies.
They sure had no problem spreading the "russia collusion" lie.

There was no "russia collusion" lie. The US Senate confirmed it took place...the one headed by the Republican party.


We both know you won't read it so I took the liberty of providing a screenshot of Trump's felonious campaign manager's activitities:

View attachment 416970

View attachment 416971

And there was enough evidence of Russian interference that the Blob's own DOJ appointed a special prosecutor. The OIC determined that the blob obstructed or sought to obstruct justice ten times and netted several blob associates--most often for conduct that involved...you guessed it...Russia.
Bitter dems voting on something is hardly a confirmation of Russian collusion. No one believes that shit anymore. You guys failed.

What vote are you talking about?
Im talking about your shameful sham impeachment in congress. At least the senate got it right.

He was impeached. The Democrats achieved that.

But that was a completely different thing than his administration colluding with Russia. You DO know that...I hope.

The GOP Senate Intel Committee confirmed that your blob colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. The proof is there for you to see.
Nope.
 
I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

That's bullshit, and I am sure that even you know it.

They're censoring things that are obvious truth,and giving a pass to blatant propaganda and misinformation that supports their degenerate left wrong-wing agenda.

What you mean by “stick to the truth and honesty”, is stick to the lies and nonsense that our masters tell us to believe, no matter how obvious it is that they are lies.
They sure had no problem spreading the "russia collusion" lie.

There was no "russia collusion" lie. The US Senate confirmed it took place...the one headed by the Republican party.


We both know you won't read it so I took the liberty of providing a screenshot of Trump's felonious campaign manager's activitities:

View attachment 416970

View attachment 416971

And there was enough evidence of Russian interference that the Blob's own DOJ appointed a special prosecutor. The OIC determined that the blob obstructed or sought to obstruct justice ten times and netted several blob associates--most often for conduct that involved...you guessed it...Russia.
Bitter dems voting on something is hardly a confirmation of Russian collusion. No one believes that shit anymore. You guys failed.

What vote are you talking about?
Im talking about your shameful sham impeachment in congress. At least the senate got it right.

He was impeached. The Democrats achieved that.

But that was a completely different thing than his administration colluding with Russia. You DO know that...I hope.

The GOP Senate Intel Committee confirmed that your blob colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. The proof is there for you to see.
Nope.
Your surrender is accepted
 
Its a bit ironic that folk are whining about censorship on a forum that gives access to every foul right wing notion that you can shake a stick at. Isn t that the answer to your question ?

On a broader theme social media is in its infancy and will probably develop like other forms of communication. So you will see platforms emerge that are right or left leaning. But they will be shaped by the people with lots of money and not by people like you and me.
Because USMB exist, there is no censorship? :cuckoo:
If there was censorship then it wouldnt exist. That much should be obvious to the densest of the trumpers out there.
That has to be the dumbest thing ive heard in awhile. :cuckoo:
 
I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

That's bullshit, and I am sure that even you know it.

They're censoring things that are obvious truth,and giving a pass to blatant propaganda and misinformation that supports their degenerate left wrong-wing agenda.

What you mean by “stick to the truth and honesty”, is stick to the lies and nonsense that our masters tell us to believe, no matter how obvious it is that they are lies.
They sure had no problem spreading the "russia collusion" lie.

There was no "russia collusion" lie. The US Senate confirmed it took place...the one headed by the Republican party.


We both know you won't read it so I took the liberty of providing a screenshot of Trump's felonious campaign manager's activitities:

View attachment 416970

View attachment 416971

And there was enough evidence of Russian interference that the Blob's own DOJ appointed a special prosecutor. The OIC determined that the blob obstructed or sought to obstruct justice ten times and netted several blob associates--most often for conduct that involved...you guessed it...Russia.
Bitter dems voting on something is hardly a confirmation of Russian collusion. No one believes that shit anymore. You guys failed.

What vote are you talking about?
Im talking about your shameful sham impeachment in congress. At least the senate got it right.

He was impeached. The Democrats achieved that.

But that was a completely different thing than his administration colluding with Russia. You DO know that...I hope.

The GOP Senate Intel Committee confirmed that your blob colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. The proof is there for you to see.
Nope.
Your surrender is accepted
Your nonsense is rejected.
 
i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.
Private companies monitoring their own platforms isn't censorship.


Then they'll waive their Federally protected liability rights, yes? :lol: And your cool with private businesses denying gays and blacks service because its all okay as far as your concerned.

Hypocrite pos.
 
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;


But I couldn't get it to play.

This version played better.


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”
zuck-1_0.jpg



". . . 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.. . . "
 
i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.
Private companies monitoring their own platforms isn't censorship.


Then they'll waive their Federally protected liability rights, yes? :lol: And your cool with private businesses denying gays and blacks service because its all okay as far as your concerned.

Hypocrite pos.
You're confused. Non white and Alternatively sexual people aren't Allowed to tell outrageous lies and or incite violence on their platforms either. They apply the rules to all.
 
i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.
Private companies monitoring their own platforms isn't censorship.


Then they'll waive their Federally protected liability rights, yes? :lol: And your cool with private businesses denying gays and blacks service because its all okay as far as your concerned.

Hypocrite pos.
You're confused. Non white and Alternatively sexual people aren't Allowed to tell outrageous lies and or incite violence on their platforms either. They apply the rules to all.

Haha haha. That's the best belly laugh I've had in days. Dims......gotta luv 'em. :D
 
i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.
Private companies monitoring their own platforms isn't censorship.


Then they'll waive their Federally protected liability rights, yes? :lol: And your cool with private businesses denying gays and blacks service because its all okay as far as your concerned.

Hypocrite pos.
You're confused. Non white and Alternatively sexual people aren't Allowed to tell outrageous lies and or incite violence on their platforms either. They apply the rules to all.

Haha haha. That's the best belly laugh I've had in days. Dims......gotta luv 'em. :D
Ah, you aren't confused.

You're stupid.

Thanks for clarifying that.
 
Last edited:
i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.
Private companies monitoring their own platforms isn't censorship.


Then they'll waive their Federally protected liability rights, yes? :lol: And your cool with private businesses denying gays and blacks service because its all okay as far as your concerned.

Hypocrite pos.


I'm cool with private businesses discriminating against other people for their ignorant primitive religious beliefs.

just as long as decent and rational people can discriminate against you and your friends for the same "religious" beliefs...

my religion is NONbelief!
or atheism/agnosticism

my rational belief is JUST as important and JUST AS PROTECTED as your ignorant opinions.

so if you can discriminate against blacks or gays or atheists then we can do like wise to you....

I would never deny a piece of shit his right to behave like a piece of shit and deny service to blacks or gays

I would, instead, boycott his business and encourage others to do likewise.....

BTW....
a piece of shit conservative christian working for the government can NOT use THEIR RELIGION as a basis to discriminate.
 
I notice that the platforms are censoring dis-information. If you don't want to be censored, stick to the truth and honesty.

That's bullshit, and I am sure that even you know it.

They're censoring things that are obvious truth,and giving a pass to blatant propaganda and misinformation that supports their degenerate left wrong-wing agenda.

What you mean by “stick to the truth and honesty”, is stick to the lies and nonsense that our masters tell us to believe, no matter how obvious it is that they are lies.
They sure had no problem spreading the "russia collusion" lie.

There was no "russia collusion" lie. The US Senate confirmed it took place...the one headed by the Republican party.


We both know you won't read it so I took the liberty of providing a screenshot of Trump's felonious campaign manager's activitities:

View attachment 416970

View attachment 416971

And there was enough evidence of Russian interference that the Blob's own DOJ appointed a special prosecutor. The OIC determined that the blob obstructed or sought to obstruct justice ten times and netted several blob associates--most often for conduct that involved...you guessed it...Russia.
Bitter dems voting on something is hardly a confirmation of Russian collusion. No one believes that shit anymore. You guys failed.

What vote are you talking about?
Im talking about your shameful sham impeachment in congress. At least the senate got it right.

He was impeached. The Democrats achieved that.

But that was a completely different thing than his administration colluding with Russia. You DO know that...I hope.

The GOP Senate Intel Committee confirmed that your blob colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. The proof is there for you to see.
Nope.
Your surrender is accepted
Your nonsense is rejected.

The GOP Senate Intel Committee confirmed that your blob colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. The proof is there for you to see.

Do you disagree? If so...please tell us why you think the Republican lead Senate got it wrong?
 

Forum List

Back
Top