- Thread starter
- #121
When you made that up, was it not pointless, disinformation?When Trump told CNN to fire Jim
Acosta, was that censorship?
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.
When you made that up, was it not pointless, disinformation?When Trump told CNN to fire Jim
Acosta, was that censorship?
It does all the time. Haven't you noticed there are a lot of government web sites, to say nothing of the professional liars that operate under the title of press secretary? What it does not have the right to do is intimidate the media into supporting or censoring the speech of private citizens.Doesn’t the government have some right to speak freely too?
Define “intimidating” please. What does that mean exactly?It does all the time. Haven't you noticed there are a lot of government web sites, to say nothing of the professional liars that operate under the title of press secretary? What it does not have the right to do is intimidate the media into supporting or censoring the speech of private citizens.
Any contact from the government to a private company expressing a desire the company to coordinate efforts with the government in which the private company representative was led to think that there could be negative consequences for not going along. Such can be well cloaked in rhetoric but also understood.Define “intimidating” please. What does that mean exactly?
isn't that a demofk thing if someone is providing disinformation?Don’t try to censor me.
It means what is says.Define “intimidating” please. What does that mean exactly?
Did the government tell Facebook there would be negative consequences if they didn’t do as they said?Any contact from the government to a private company expressing a desire the company to coordinate efforts with the government in which the private company representative was led to think that there could be negative consequences for not going along. Such can be well cloaked in rhetoric but also understood.
Look up "Chilling effect on free speech" for a better understanding. The government doesn't have to say something like, "Nice little media empire you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it but cooperate with us and we'll make sure nothing does" to effect free speech.
It’s a flimsy word that could mean a lot of things to a lot of people.It means what is says.
If you need help, find a dictionary.
he used the word pressured. it implies it right?Did the government tell Facebook there would be negative consequences if they didn’t do as they said?
well the word pressured was used by zuk. What do you supposed he thought it meant since he complied?It’s a flimsy word that could mean a lot of things to a lot of people.
To me, it means that the government threatened Facebook if they didn’t comply. To others, they might say that every time the government requests something, it’s intimidation.
I'm not privy to the communication, so I don't know what the FB representatives took away from it. The fact that there even was a communication about it, however, raises big red flags, no matter how innocently the government tries to portray it. Let's just put it this way, how many private citizens would feel completely comfortable not only ignoring such a communication, but actively allowing their platform to publish things they KNOW the administration does not favor? If the biggest, meanest, strongest bully on the block comes to your little lemonade stand and asks you to coordinate with him to whom you'll sell lemonade and who you will refuse, do you feel intimidated no matter how polite he might have sounded?Did the government tell Facebook there would be negative consequences if they didn’t do as they said?
remember when the government told businesses to terminate any employees that wouldn't take the jab? hmmmmm precedence is set based on that alone, not to mention probable other things.I'm not privy to the communication, so I don't know what the FB representatives took away from it. The fact that there even was a communication about it, however, raises big red flags, no matter how innocently the government tries to portray it. Let's just put it this way, how many private citizens would feel completely comfortable not only ignoring such a communication, but actively allowing their platform to publish things they KNOW the administration does not favor? If the biggest, meanest, strongest bully on the block comes to your little lemonade stand and asks you to coordinate with him to whom you'll sell lemonade and who you will refuse, do you feel intimidated no matter how polite he might have sounded?
Depends if they’re actually a “bully” or if they’re just trying to make a case that the disinformation is hurting people.I'm not privy to the communication, so I don't know what the FB representatives took away from it. The fact that there even was a communication about it, however, raises big red flags, no matter how innocently the government tries to portray it. Let's just put it this way, how many private citizens would feel completely comfortable not only ignoring such a communication, but actively allowing their platform to publish things they KNOW the administration does not favor? If the biggest, meanest, strongest bully on the block comes to your little lemonade stand and asks you to coordinate with him to whom you'll sell lemonade and who you will refuse, do you feel intimidated no matter how polite he might have sounded?
The bottom line for me is this. When the government gains power, it never releases it, only increases it. Give them the power to "coordinate" with media companies on legally censoring speech and they will not only never stop doing it, they will expand the practice and there will be consequences for non-compliance.remember when the government told businesses to terminate any employees that wouldn't take the jab? hmmmmm precedence is set based on that alone, not to mention probable other things.
Let's say the bully says that he knows who among your customers are criminals that want to taste your lemonade, then bad mouth it to all the other customers, driving them to your competition. Surely, he's acting in everyone's best interests, right?Depends if they’re actually a “bully” or if they’re just trying to make a case that the disinformation is hurting people.
I'll agree to the government preventing misinformation when I am appointed the arbiter of what constitutes misinformation.This is what a bully looks like:
![]()
Trump threatens to cancel NBC’s broadcast license over critical reporting
A terrifying threat, if it were remotely credible.www.vox.com
funny how it's mainly demofks. A few rino repubs, but mostly demofks enjoy power, it's why they've been in government for their 40 year careers. Representatives were not supposed to be a full time job. power hungry politicians determined they owned their roles and control was all theirs so fk citizens.The bottom line for me is this. When the government gains power, it never releases it, only increases it. Give them the power to "coordinate" with media companies on legally censoring speech and they will not only never stop doing it, they will expand the practice and there will be consequences for non-compliance.
Very short sighted especially when misinformation has such capability of causing harm.I'll agree to the government preventing misinformation when I am appointed the arbiter of what constitutes misinformation.
hurting people how?Depends if they’re actually a “bully” or if they’re just trying to make a case that the disinformation is hurting people.
This is what a bully looks like:
![]()
Trump threatens to cancel NBC’s broadcast license over critical reporting
A terrifying threat, if it were remotely credible.www.vox.com
what kind of harm are you referring to? give us an example of where it was used.Very short sighted especially when misinformation has such capability of causing harm.
Why is it short-sighted? I promise to be very fair.Very short sighted especially when misinformation has such capability of causing harm.