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

[hadit]

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.

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

 

[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.

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.

Of course it matters. The action your upset about is fundamentally a voluntary one by Facebook. The government doesn’t control that.

 

[Vel]

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.

Yes there are. Do some real research and you'll figure out the difference between a publisher and a platform. I doubt you'll figure out how not to defend this banana republic though.

 

[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.

Of course it matters. The action your upset about is fundamentally a voluntary one by Facebook. The government doesn’t control that.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. If government is selecting what to censor, and Facebook is willing...IT IS STILL GOVERNMENT FUCKING ACTION.

How do you not see that? For fuck's sake.

 

[hadit]

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 the government gives FOX or MSNBC a list of stories that should be covered favorably or unfavorably and they follow that list, then yes, at that point they are little more than a mouthpiece for the government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 the government gives FOX or MSNBC a list of stories that should be covered favorably or unfavorably and they follow that list, then yes, at that point they are little more than a mouthpiece for the government.

But, that's just telling a news source what to print.

THIS is a PLATFORM specifically designed to allow users to express themselves and GOVERNMENT is telling the platform to censor that speech.

 

[colfax_m]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

 

[Mac-7]

Explain how.

Biden tells FaceBook what info he doesnt want the public to see and FaceBook does the rest

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

FUCKING BULLSHIT!!!!

Government CANNOT coordinate and collude with the private sector to censor free speech, you fucking NAZI piece of shit!!

 

[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.

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.

Of course it matters. The action your upset about is fundamentally a voluntary one by Facebook. The government doesn’t control that.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. If government is selecting what to censor, and Facebook is willing...IT IS STILL GOVERNMENT FUCKING ACTION.

How do you not see that? For fuck's sake.

The angerier you get, the more I know you’re running out of argument.

Why doesn’t it matter?

Facebook is the one deciding what to take down.

 

[hadit]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

 

[Vel]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

Obtusity and obfuscation.

 

[colfax_m]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

 

[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.

Of course it matters. The action your upset about is fundamentally a voluntary one by Facebook. The government doesn’t control that.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. If government is selecting what to censor, and Facebook is willing...IT IS STILL GOVERNMENT FUCKING ACTION.

How do you not see that? For fuck's sake.

The angerier you get, the more I know you’re running out of argument.

Why doesn’t it matter?

Facebook is the one deciding what to take down.

If Facebook we're deciding what to take down, that would be a different issue.

The fact that the government is colluding with Facebook to limit speech government doesn't like, is the very definition of government censorship, you cocksucker an idiot.

If I seem pissed off to you it's because I get pissed off when I'm talking to a fucking dumb ass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Get it through your cock sucking idiot thick skull.

Government action is government action. Is government asking somebody to do something?

Is government asking someone to censor speech?

Is government asking someone to censor free-speech?

Is government asking someone to answer free-speech?


Government is acting you cocksucking idiot.

 

[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.

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.

Of course it matters. The action your upset about is fundamentally a voluntary one by Facebook. The government doesn’t control that.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. If government is selecting what to censor, and Facebook is willing...IT IS STILL GOVERNMENT FUCKING ACTION.

How do you not see that? For fuck's sake.

The angerier you get, the more I know you’re running out of argument.

Why doesn’t it matter?

Facebook is the one deciding what to take down.

If Facebook we're deciding what to take down, that would be a different issue.

The fact that the government is colluding with Facebook to limit speech government doesn't like, is the very definition of government censorship, you cocksucker an idiot.

If I seem pissed off to you it's because I get pissed off when I'm talking to a fucking dumb ass.

Facebook is deciding what to take down.

If government were forcing them to take down content, then it’d be censorship.

You are pissed off because you don’t like it when people push back on you. I think it’s intellectual insecurity.

 

[colfax_m]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Get it through your cock sucking idiot thick skull.

Government action is government action. Is government asking somebody to do something?

Is government asking someone to censor speech?

Is government asking someone to censor free-speech?

Is government asking someone to answer free-speech?


Government is acting you cocksucking idiot.

There’s a difference between government request and government mandate.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Get it through your cock sucking idiot thick skull.

Government action is government action. Is government asking somebody to do something?

Is government asking someone to censor speech?

Is government asking someone to censor free-speech?

Is government asking someone to answer free-speech?


Government is acting you cocksucking idiot.

There’s a difference between government request and government mandate.

But there's no difference between government action and government action.

Your skull is thick.

 

[colfax_m]

But there's no difference between government action and government action.

You’re confused about the action in question.

The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.

 

[hadit]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Are you saying then that FOX News was NOT being a state actor? Although, to be accurate, Hannity is not a journalist, he's a commentator.

Note that I never referenced forcing anything. In fact, when I used your media comparison, I said they met with Quid Pro's reps and agreed on what to report, nothing about coercion or force. You don't have to be forced to be a state actor, you just coordinate activities with the state and follow its lead, just like FB is doing (very doubtful they would announce they were working with FB if FB refused to go along).