Psaki reveals White House (government) is consulting with Facebook to 'flag misinformation'

[Vel]

BOOOM!!! That is GOVERNMENT using Facebook as a tool of censorship!!!

1ST AMENDMENT WILL APPLY!!!

Nope. Working together for a common purpose does not transform them into a state actor.

This is NOT "working together for a common purpose". This is the government using private businesses, which they have the power to regulate, to suppress ideas they don't like and to promote ideas they do like. What kind of banana republic do you want to live in?

 

[colfax_m]

News media gives presidents prime time slots at their request to broadcast important messages to the nation.

I guess Fox is now a state actor?

 

[colfax_m]

BOOOM!!! That is GOVERNMENT using Facebook as a tool of censorship!!!

1ST AMENDMENT WILL APPLY!!!

Nope. Working together for a common purpose does not transform them into a state actor.

This is NOT "working together for a common purpose". This is the government using private businesses, which they have the power to regulate, to suppress ideas they don't like and to promote ideas they do like. What kind of banana republic do you want to live in?

Are you implying Facebook is being forced to do so?

Or maybe Facebook just wants to keep dumb (and dangerous) shit off their website.

 

[Vel]

News media gives presidents prime time slots at their request to broadcast important messages to the nation.

I guess Fox is now a state actor?

If Fox is suppressing information at the request of the government then yes, they are a state actor.

 

[colfax_m]

That is the very definition of state action, you cocksucking dumbfuck.

The state is not controlling Facebook. Facebook is doing it voluntarily.

That does not make Facebook a state actor.

"A Horse Having A Wolf As A Powerful And Dangerous Enemy Lived In Constant Fear Of His Life. Being Driven To Desperation, It Occurred To Him To Seek A Strong Ally. Whereupon He Approached A Man, And Offered An Alliance, Pointing Out That The Wolf Was Likewise An Enemy Of The Man. The Man Accepted The Partnership At Once And Offered To Kill The Wolf Immediately, If His New Partner Would Only Co-operate By Placing His Greater Speed At The Man's Disposal. The Horse Was Willing, And Allowed The Man To Place Bridle And Saddle Upon Him. The Man Mounted, Hunted Down The Wolf, And Killed Him. "The Horse, Joyful And Relieved, Thanked The Man, And Said: 'Now That Our Enemy Is Dead, Remove Your Bridle And Saddle And Restore My Freedom.' "Whereupon The Man Laughed Loudly And Replied, 'Never!' And Applied The Spurs With A Will."- Isaac Asimov

Who is the one that is restricting freedom here?

It’s conservatives that are passing laws and talking about forcing Facebook to do things against their will.

 

[colfax_m]

If Fox is suppressing information at the request of the government then yes, they are a state actor.

So it only applies to suppression of information and not promotion of information?

What’s the difference?

 

[Vel]

BOOOM!!! That is GOVERNMENT using Facebook as a tool of censorship!!!

1ST AMENDMENT WILL APPLY!!!

Nope. Working together for a common purpose does not transform them into a state actor.

This is NOT "working together for a common purpose". This is the government using private businesses, which they have the power to regulate, to suppress ideas they don't like and to promote ideas they do like. What kind of banana republic do you want to live in?

Are you implying Facebook is being forced to do so?

Or maybe Facebook just wants to keep dumb (and dangerous) shit off their website.

If Facebook is making editorial decisions then they have become publishers and need to be held liable for any damage done because of anything anyone places on their platform. 230 protections should be stripped.

 

[Vel]

That is the very definition of state action, you cocksucking dumbfuck.

The state is not controlling Facebook. Facebook is doing it voluntarily.

That does not make Facebook a state actor.

"A Horse Having A Wolf As A Powerful And Dangerous Enemy Lived In Constant Fear Of His Life. Being Driven To Desperation, It Occurred To Him To Seek A Strong Ally. Whereupon He Approached A Man, And Offered An Alliance, Pointing Out That The Wolf Was Likewise An Enemy Of The Man. The Man Accepted The Partnership At Once And Offered To Kill The Wolf Immediately, If His New Partner Would Only Co-operate By Placing His Greater Speed At The Man's Disposal. The Horse Was Willing, And Allowed The Man To Place Bridle And Saddle Upon Him. The Man Mounted, Hunted Down The Wolf, And Killed Him. "The Horse, Joyful And Relieved, Thanked The Man, And Said: 'Now That Our Enemy Is Dead, Remove Your Bridle And Saddle And Restore My Freedom.' "Whereupon The Man Laughed Loudly And Replied, 'Never!' And Applied The Spurs With A Will."- Isaac Asimov

Who is the one that is restricting freedom here?

It’s conservatives that are passing laws and talking about forcing Facebook to do things against their will.

Bullshit. What a good freaking German you would have made.

 

[colfax_m]

Bullshit. What a good freaking German you would have made.

It’s true. Facebook doesn’t want Covid disinformation on their platform.

Yet conservatives want to force them to keep it.

You are the ones advocating taking away freedom.

 

[Vel]

Bullshit. What a good freaking German you would have made.

It’s true. Facebook doesn’t want Covid disinformation on their platform.

Yet conservatives want to force them to keep it.

You are the ones advocating taking away freedom.

OMG! We have dumbed this country down to the point that I don't know if it's fixable anymore. You are literally defending the government suppressing free speech and spreading propaganda.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bullshit. What a good freaking German you would have made.

It’s true. Facebook doesn’t want Covid disinformation on their platform.

Yet conservatives want to force them to keep it.

You are the ones advocating taking away freedom.

Facebook is one thing, but when GOVERNMENT is telling Facebook who/what to silence, you don't see that as government action?

 

[Vel]

Once again, This is a good parable to the alliance between big tech and the federal government,

A Horse Having A Wolf As A Powerful And Dangerous Enemy Lived In Constant Fear Of His Life. Being Driven To Desperation, It Occurred To Him To Seek A Strong Ally. Whereupon He Approached A Man, And Offered An Alliance, Pointing Out That The Wolf Was Likewise An Enemy Of The Man. The Man Accepted The Partnership At Once And Offered To Kill The Wolf Immediately, If His New Partner Would Only Co-operate By Placing His Greater Speed At The Man's Disposal. The Horse Was Willing, And Allowed The Man To Place Bridle And Saddle Upon Him. The Man Mounted, Hunted Down The Wolf, And Killed Him. "The Horse, Joyful And Relieved, Thanked The Man, And Said: 'Now That Our Enemy Is Dead, Remove Your Bridle And Saddle And Restore My Freedom.' "Whereupon The Man Laughed Loudly And Replied, 'Never!' And Applied The Spurs With A Will. - Isaac Asimov

 

[colfax_m]

Facebook is one thing, but when GOVERNMENT is telling Facebook who/what to silence, you don't see that as government action?

Only if there’s coercion.

If you can show the government is requiring Facebook to do something, you’d have a case.

 

[colfax_m]

You are literally defending the government suppressing free speech and spreading propaganda.

Actually no. Conservatives are the ones trying to suppress free speech by forcing Facebook to speak in a manner they do not want.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Facebook is one thing, but when GOVERNMENT is telling Facebook who/what to silence, you don't see that as government action?

Only if there’s coercion.

If you can show the government is requiring Facebook to do something, you’d have a case.

Government telling Facebook who/what to silence is government action REGARDLESS if Facebook is willing.

Government should NEVER have a say. Should NEVER be part of that process, as heinous as it already is.

Anyone silenced by Facebook can ASSUME that government is behind it and sue the motherfucking FUCK out of the administration.

 

[Vel]

You are literally defending the government suppressing free speech and spreading propaganda.

Actually no. Conservatives are the ones trying to suppress free speech by forcing Facebook to speak in a manner they do not want.

Bullshit. You're trying to defend damned Gestapo tactics. It's very sad to you love your party more than your country. As to Facebook, if they wish to be a publisher rather than a platform, that's fine. They should be required to adhere to the same laws which apply to any other publisher. 230 protections will no longer apply.

 

[colfax_m]

Facebook is one thing, but when GOVERNMENT is telling Facebook who/what to silence, you don't see that as government action?

Only if there’s coercion.

If you can show the government is requiring Facebook to do something, you’d have a case.

Government telling Facebook who/what to silence is government action REGARDLESS if Facebook is willing.

Government should NEVER have a say. Should NEVER be part of that process, as heinous as it already is.

Anyone silenced by Facebook can ASSUME that government is behind it and sue the motherfucking FUCK out of the administration.

Doesn’t then Facebook into a state actor.

And the lawsuit against the government is going to claim what as a damage? Lack of speech on a website that is privately owned and operated? There’s no right to speech on that website.

 

[Vel]

Facebook is one thing, but when GOVERNMENT is telling Facebook who/what to silence, you don't see that as government action?

Only if there’s coercion.

If you can show the government is requiring Facebook to do something, you’d have a case.

Government telling Facebook who/what to silence is government action REGARDLESS if Facebook is willing.

Government should NEVER have a say. Should NEVER be part of that process, as heinous as it already is.

Anyone silenced by Facebook can ASSUME that government is behind it and sue the motherfucking FUCK out of the administration.

Amazing isn't it that partisan assholes will defend ANYTHING as long as it's THEIR party committing the act. Any normal person understands that if you have the power to regulate an entity then anything you ask of that entity comes with greater pressure.

 

[colfax_m]

230 protections will no longer apply.

The section 230 says they’re not treated as a publisher for user submitted content. At all. Period. End of story. No caveats. There is no mechanism under which that protection doesn’t apply.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Facebook is one thing, but when GOVERNMENT is telling Facebook who/what to silence, you don't see that as government action?

Only if there’s coercion.

If you can show the government is requiring Facebook to do something, you’d have a case.

Government telling Facebook who/what to silence is government action REGARDLESS if Facebook is willing.

Government should NEVER have a say. Should NEVER be part of that process, as heinous as it already is.

Anyone silenced by Facebook can ASSUME that government is behind it and sue the motherfucking FUCK out of the administration.

Doesn’t then Facebook into a state actor.

And the lawsuit against the government is going to claim what as a damage? Lack of speech on a website that is privately owned and operated? There’s no right to speech on that website.

Oh, how you BEND OVER BACKWARDS to defend GOVERNMENT shitting on free speech, because it's on a private platform, as if that changes government's actions.

You need to take your stupid ass back to law school.