Meta CEO admits Biden-Harris admin pressured company to censor Americans

[Hollie]

When Trump told CNN to fire Jim
Acosta, was that censorship?

When you made that up, was it not pointless, disinformation?

 

[hadit]

Doesn’t the government have some right to speak freely too?

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.

 

[Marener]

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.

Define “intimidating” please. What does that mean exactly?

 

[hadit]

Define “intimidating” please. What does that mean exactly?

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.

 

[jc456]

Don’t try to censor me.

isn't that a demofk thing if someone is providing disinformation?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Define “intimidating” please. What does that mean exactly?

It means what is says.

If you need help, find a dictionary.

 

[Marener]

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.

Did the government tell Facebook there would be negative consequences if they didn’t do as they said?

 

[Marener]

It means what is says.

If you need help, find a dictionary.

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.

 

[jc456]

Did the government tell Facebook there would be negative consequences if they didn’t do as they said?

he used the word pressured. it implies it right?

 

[jc456]

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.

well the word pressured was used by zuk. What do you supposed he thought it meant since he complied?

 

[hadit]

Did the government tell Facebook there would be negative consequences if they didn’t do as they said?

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?

 

[jc456]

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?

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.

 

[Marener]

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.

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

 

[hadit]

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.

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.

 

[hadit]

Depends if they’re actually a “bully” or if they’re just trying to make a case that the disinformation is hurting people.

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?

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

I'll agree to the government preventing misinformation when I am appointed the arbiter of what constitutes misinformation.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

 

[Marener]

I'll agree to the government preventing misinformation when I am appointed the arbiter of what constitutes misinformation.

Very short sighted especially when misinformation has such capability of causing harm.

 

[jc456]

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

hurting people how?

 

[jc456]

Very short sighted especially when misinformation has such capability of causing harm.

what kind of harm are you referring to? give us an example of where it was used.

 

[hadit]

Very short sighted especially when misinformation has such capability of causing harm.

Why is it short-sighted? I promise to be very fair.

You know I'm pointing out the elephant in the room. Once you give the government the power to control speech, the true power falls on the persons assigned the authority to define when that power is used. Tell you what, who in the TRUMP! administration would you trust with the authority to dictate acceptable speech? Because you know that, sooner or later, a president WILL come into power who will squash speech you like.