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.
The request and collusion is an action of government.You’re confused about the action in question.But there's no difference between government action and government action.
The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.
By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.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.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.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.Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.
News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.
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
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).
Gotcha. So if Trump said to a media organization they should fire a certain journalist, that request would be unconstitutional.The request and collusion is an action of government.You’re confused about the action in question.But there's no difference between government action and government action.
The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.
You can sit here and pretend that this is not government action all you want to. That just proves that you're the fucking Nazi we believe you to be.
I am not surprised that you continue to miss the point and conflate the issues. You are that dumb.By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.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.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.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.Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.
News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.
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.
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).
That’s bad logic and I reject it.
Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?
I don't know. That has nothing to do with free speech.Gotcha. So if Trump said to a media organization they should fire a certain journalist, that request would be unconstitutional.The request and collusion is an action of government.You’re confused about the action in question.But there's no difference between government action and government action.
The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.
You can sit here and pretend that this is not government action all you want to. That just proves that you're the fucking Nazi we believe you to be.
If the GOVERNMENT is telling them what to publish and what to suppress they are acting as tools of the GOVERNMENT. It's not rocket science.Gotcha. So if Trump said to a media organization they should fire a certain journalist, that request would be unconstitutional.The request and collusion is an action of government.You’re confused about the action in question.But there's no difference between government action and government action.
The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.
You can sit here and pretend that this is not government action all you want to. That just proves that you're the fucking Nazi we believe you to be.
A request does not constitute a violation of free speech.To Colfax, that is NOT government action, even though making a request is an action.
Of course it does. Trump would be requesting a suppression of that journalists freedom of speech. Would he not?I don't know. That has nothing to do with free speech.
Yes it does.A request does not constitute a violation of free speech.To Colfax, that is NOT government action, even though making a request is an action.
It's a definition thing. Hannity was a state actor when he coordinated with TRUMP! and everyone knew what he was doing. Likewise, FB is a state actor now when they take direction from Quid Pro on what information to flag and ultimately to squash. FB would NOT be a state actor if they looked at a government request and said, "No, we'll decide what should and should not be flagged", or held a press conference to make it clear they were NOT coordinating with Quid Pro. They can't, though, because they are.By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.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.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.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.Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.
News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.
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.
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).
That’s bad logic and I reject it.
Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?
No, he would be requesting that the journalist lose a job, which no one has a right to.Of course it does. Trump would be requesting a suppression of that journalists freedom of speech. Would he not?I don't know. That has nothing to do with free speech.
No one has a right to post on Facebook either.No, he would be requesting that the journalist lose a job, which no one has a right to.
And government action to prevent speech, even if it is on a private platform, is GOVERNMENT ACTION to censor free speech.No one has a right to post on Facebook either.No, he would be requesting that the journalist lose a job, which no one has a right to.
Are you getting this yet?
Are you saying Facebook isn’t deciding what to take down?It's a definition thing. Hannity was a state actor when he coordinated with TRUMP! and everyone knew what he was doing. Likewise, FB is a state actor now when they take direction from Quid Pro on what information to flag and ultimately to squash. FB would NOT be a state actor if they looked at a government request and said, "No, we'll decide what should and should not be flagged", or held a press conference to make it clear they were NOT coordinating with Quid Pro. They can't, though, because they are.By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.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.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.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.Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.
News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.
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.
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).
That’s bad logic and I reject it.
Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?
Way to dodge the point.And government action to prevent speech, even if it is on a private platform, is GOVERNMENT ACTION to censor free speech.
Government asking them to take down ANYTHING is government action.Are you saying Facebook isn’t deciding what to take down?It's a definition thing. Hannity was a state actor when he coordinated with TRUMP! and everyone knew what he was doing. Likewise, FB is a state actor now when they take direction from Quid Pro on what information to flag and ultimately to squash. FB would NOT be a state actor if they looked at a government request and said, "No, we'll decide what should and should not be flagged", or held a press conference to make it clear they were NOT coordinating with Quid Pro. They can't, though, because they are.By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.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.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.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.Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.
News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.
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.
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).
That’s bad logic and I reject it.
Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?
The White House has been asking them to take down more content than they have.
Apples to Toilet Plungers, dumb fuck.So you’d agree that Trump telling news media to fire a journalist would be censorship, correct?
Would you consider THAT government action?
