You can't post about the Hunter Biden scandal on Twitter now

[Redcurtain]

Twatter day will come.

I promise.

Enough is enough!

I’m on Parler

 

[skye]

Twatter day will come.

I promise.

Enough is enough!

I’m on Parler

GAB is excellent also!


I will very soon get on GAB!

 

[Dragonlady]

Only friggin damn Trumpist morons give a flying fig about Hunter Biden.

For the 183838282 time... ITS NOT ABOUT HUNTER, YOU DENSE MOTHER FUCKERS!!!

it’s about the fact that Biden used his position to pressure a foreign country, using our tax dollars as the tool, to get his son and his company out of legal trouble!!!

How fucking hard is this to understand??

It's really hard to understand BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED.

JOE BIDEN WAS SENT BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE US SENATE, THE IMF, NATO, AND THE WORLD BANK TO TELL THE UKRAINIANS TO FIRE THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR.

The newspaper accounts of these meetings are still on the internet, as is the letter Republican Senators signed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[hadit]

So you're basing your assertion that there was collusion on something you've not seen, not heard, and really have no idea even exists? SMH and LOL.

as are you. However, there is a caveat with my assertion - if there is nothing to see, why not release the whole report? It's wasn't the Dems stopping it. I think that would lead anybody to reasonably believe they are hiding something.

What assertion am I making? I'm challenging yours, and so far, you only have feelz to base it on. As for not releasing the whole report, of course there are things to hide, classified information for one. Since we don't know what hasn't been released all you have is conjecture, and you're all too happy to let your imagination run wild.

 

[Zorro!]

View attachment 401599

This Is what Republicans wanted.

A private business should be able to serve who it wants, how it wants.

The issue here is these companies are afforded the protections as if they are a public venue, which makes them not responsible for anything that is said in their platform.
The problem is they act as a publisher, because they edit/censor content.

Essentially, they are having it both ways. I’m sure someone else will take the time to explain it to you. I won’t bother, as you are a complete dumbass and won’t comprehend what is being said.

As usual, your ignorance is on full display.

Social media executives are about to discover the Streisand effect.

Facebook and Twitter censor potentially damning story about Joe Biden and corruption.

Social media executives are about to discover the Streisand effect.

Facebook has restricted its users' ability to share a potentially damning news report about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Twitter has taken similar actions to limit the story's distribution.

“Given the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials included in the article, we’re taking action to limit the spread of this information,” a Twitter spokesperson told the Washington Examiner.​

The New York Post published an article Wednesday morning purporting to show that Hunter Biden introduced his father, then the vice president, “to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.”

The Streisand Effect: When censorship backfires.

Martha's Never-Seconds blog attracted even more attention after she was banned from taking photographs of her school dinners.​

Argyll and Bute Council are in the news for falling foul of what's known as the Streisand Effect - the act of trying to suppress information but simply making it more widespread as a result.

Martha Payne, from Argyll, was writing about her school dinners on her NeverSeconds blog, taking pictures of them and offering ratings for their nutritional value.

But Argyll and Bute Council banned her from taking photos of her school's food, saying press coverage of the blog had led catering staff to fear for their jobs.

However, they reckoned without the Streisand Effect, which saw the photo ban make headline news in some of the nation's biggest media organisations and the story spiral into a much bigger one than it ever was before.

The furor forced the local authority to reverse the ban, with the leader issuing a statement to say there was "no place for censorship" on the council.

The story sums up the Streisand Effect, named after singer Barbra Streisand, which is an online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove information - a photo, video, story etc - results in the greater spread of the information in question.

Paul Armstrong, head of social for Mindshare , a global media network, says the Streisand Effect is a reminder to brands and celebrities about the effect groups, and individuals, can have on the internet in a very short space of time.

"People have an innate inquisitiveness. When this is mixed with a fear of missing out, feeling something is being hidden from them or that someone is overacting to something, it can cause individuals to react in undesired or mischievous ways that others then support.​

​

"Mix this combination with a natural dislike for censorship and brands or individuals can have a recipe for disaster on their hands."​

Here are some examples of the Streisand effect:

In 2003 Barbra Streisand attempted to suppress photographs taken of her house, and a meme was born.

She sued aerial photographer Kenneth Adelman for displaying a photograph of her home in Malibu, California, published as part of a series of photos of the California coastline that he was taking for a photographic project.

Her legal action was later dismissed under California law - but she was probably more upset by the 420,000 visits in a month to the site where her photo was published. Naturally, these all came after the news of her legal action made headlines around the world.

In fact, according to documents filed in a California court, her house's image had been downloaded only six times before Streisand's legal action - including twice by her own lawyers.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the singer's attempt to suppress publication of the photograph as the "Streisand effect" in January 2005.

 

[Dr Grump]

So you're basing your assertion that there was collusion on something you've not seen, not heard, and really have no idea even exists? SMH and LOL.

as are you. However, there is a caveat with my assertion - if there is nothing to see, why not release the whole report? It's wasn't the Dems stopping it. I think that would lead anybody to reasonably believe they are hiding something.

What assertion am I making? I'm challenging yours, and so far, you only have feelz to base it on. As for not releasing the whole report, of course there are things to hide, classified information for one. Since we don't know what hasn't been released all you have is conjecture, and you're all too happy to let your imagination run wild.

And imagination that is enabled by a president who lies as easily as John Lennon wrote hit songs.

 

[Zorro!]

Such nonsense.

ADMITS IT? HE’S FLAUNTING IT. Facebook Exec ADMITS Throttling NYP Story About Biden Burisma Corruption, While Twitter Blocks Access.

BS. He stopped it because he wanted it to be fact checked first. You think that a bad thing? The original source was the NY Post - a tabloid rag.

Fake News.



“Facebook Explain – Did Biden Campaign Ask You to Do So?” – Sen. Josh Hawley Calls Out Facebook for Censoring NY Post BOMBSHELL on Hunter and Joe Biden!

 

[Devils_Advocate]

View attachment 401599

True dat. But they should not have a liability exemption. They should be able to be sued for what they do

So US Messageboard should be financially liable for what some of you clowns post here?

Exactly. Most of these clowns would be in bankruptcy court for the payouts they'd have to make for the slanderish shit they post every day. None of them would dare go on record in the real world using their real names. Cowards the lot of them.

I would and have used my real name on this board and have no issue with anyone knowing who I am...

Neither you or the other poster use your real name for the same reason why most poster do not because they want to stay anonymous so no body will stalk them because we have a few deranged posters on here...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But Twitter NEVER demanded proof of collusion with Russia or any claim against trump, NOT ONCE. And you claim you don't see they hypocrisy and the reason we are mad.

Because there was collusion.

LOL except a 2 year investigation found NONE. A 2 year witch hunt designed and run by lefties could not actually find any evidence of collusion. Or Obstruction.

Not true. Mueller was not allowed to say what he wanted to. He was muzzled by Barr. That right there is corruption.

You are a LIAR, the report is out. The only part that was never released was the witness section.

 

[hadit]

So you're basing your assertion that there was collusion on something you've not seen, not heard, and really have no idea even exists? SMH and LOL.

as are you. However, there is a caveat with my assertion - if there is nothing to see, why not release the whole report? It's wasn't the Dems stopping it. I think that would lead anybody to reasonably believe they are hiding something.

What assertion am I making? I'm challenging yours, and so far, you only have feelz to base it on. As for not releasing the whole report, of course there are things to hide, classified information for one. Since we don't know what hasn't been released all you have is conjecture, and you're all too happy to let your imagination run wild.

And imagination that is enabled by a president who lies as easily as John Lennon wrote hit songs.

As long as you admit you're just emoting.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

We are long past time to revoke the section 230 protections afforded these companies.

Exactly ! Their power and influence are too excessive. It would be different if they werent using it for political gain, not to mention other acts of evil.

 

[basquebromance]

Twitter allows terrorists leaders to keep their accounts but will lock or ban people who share a news story simply because it paints Democratic nominee in a bad light?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Ditto for CNN and MSNBC. The story doesn't even exist as far as they are concerned.

I wonder if when the GOP goes to impeach Joe over this if the entire media will ignore it.

That would be hilarious if he was impeached but they say nothing about it.

You have to control the House first.

Nancy is ensuring we get it.

 

[jehanne1431]

How blatant does it have to get for those on the left before they admit it does not bother them how much dirty politics their side and the media are dealing in? . . . But don't forget to take a knee during the anthem.

 

[bripat9643]

Twizzler and Fakebook have completely outed themselves as biased. They have not shutdown stories that put Donald Trump or Conservatives in a bad light but they quickly squelch anything that might hurt Joe Biden. Just like Chris Wallace, they have been exposed.

Because more often than not the stories about Trump are true and easily provable to be so.

Such as?

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Twitter allows terrorists leaders to keep their accounts but will lock or ban people who share a news story simply because it paints Democratic nominee in a bad light?

Hey, how else can the CIA and Homeland Security keep tabs on terrorists?

Fake news or real news is not nearly as important as knowing when Basque will be screaming “ Praise God “ in a rainbow color bomb vest...

 

[Zorro!]

TO ASK THE QUESTION IS TO ANSWER IT: If ‘unreliable’ is the issue, why did social media never block anti-Trump stories?

 

[Dogbiscuit]

How blatant does it have to get for those on the left before they admit it does not bother them how much dirty politics their side and the media are dealing in? . . . But don't forget to take a knee during the anthem.

Well said my American comrade. To answer your question, for some no amount blatancy will cause any change or effect.

 

[Zorro!]

FACEBOOK EXEC ADMITS THROTTLING NY POST STORY ABOUT BIDEN BURISMA CORRUPTION, WHILE TWITTER BLOCKS ACCESS.