tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....
Who determines truth and honesty? You?Who should be appointed as the "Truth Police."
The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.
Okay...?
I think it’s responsible to censor the habitual disseminators of misinformation
You’d have to ask them. I do know they did state that they would be more aggressive In the election season.tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....
Who determines truth and honesty? You?
The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.
meh, I don't have a twitter account, and if I hadn't signed up for Facebook the very first year it was around and know for a fact that you can never delete your account? I would get rid of it.
They aren't virtual monopolies. You can stay in contact with your friends via email, and have male relatives that don't own either of those. They aren't necessary.
And if you want to create a social community with your own friends and family, there are so many other choices. Hell, other nations and different social enclaves don't even used Facebook. My kid uses Instagram. In Southeast Asia, or was it Indonesia? I think they still use Myspace. Seriously, Myspace is still ranked like number six or seven, yet, no one in the west uses it anymore.
It's bullshit to think it is a "virtual" monopoly.
But all this whining will assure government stepping in, and then? Yeah, hell yeah it will BECOME a monopoly. That is exactly what these tech giants want!
This one was hard to find, it was deleted. I checked several different platforms.
It was here;
DTube - Watch & Share Videos
Join a growing community of creators and viewers. Upload videos, subscribe to channels, and discover new content.d.tube
But I couldn't get it to play.
This version played better.
James Corbett Interview - The Social Media Regulation Psyop
In a time of such obvious deceit and aggressive manipulation, not only by those who once sought our votes or our subservience, but today even by each other, unwittingly doing the bidding of those who seek to control our every purchase, our every click, view and action, one would think that every...www.bitchute.com
The Social Media Exodus Has Begun. Here's Where Everybody's Going.
Look at the date of this video!
•Jan 13, 2017
Monopoly or not, the problem is that they have protections as a platform but censor and edit as though they were a publisher.
Like a phone company cutting off your phone service because you spoke on the phone about evidence that criminally implicated Biden.
230 does NOT require platforms to be neutral however.
We do NOT want the government regulating these tech giants, doing so, will give them a de-facto monopoly. Did you even Read or Watch the content I posted? If you want the current giants to be the new standard oil, and to make sure they forever entrench socialism, just have the government regulate them, that will ensure your worse nightmares.
No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be “Neutral”
No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be “Neutral”
One jaw-dropping moment during the Senate’s hearing on Tuesday came when Sen. Ted Cruz asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, “Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?” Unsatisfied by Zuckerberg’s response that Facebook is a “platform for all ideas,” Sen. Cruz continued, “Are you a...www.eff.org
". . . After more back-and-forth, Sen. Cruz said, “The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you’re a neutral public forum. Do you consider yourself a neutral public forum, or are you engaged in political speech, which is your right under the First Amendment?” It was a baffling question. Sen. Cruz seemed to be suggesting, incorrectly, that Facebook had to make a choice between enjoying protections for free speech under the First Amendment and enjoying the additional protections that Section 230 offers online platforms.
Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.
Indeed, one of the reasons why Congress first passed Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts. In two important early cases over Internet speech, courts allowed civil defamation claims against Prodigy but not against Compuserve; since Prodigy deleted some messages for “offensiveness” and “bad taste,” a court reasoned, it could be treated as a publisher and held liable for its users’ posts. Former Rep. Chris Cox recalls reading about the Prodigy opinion on an airplane and thinking that it was “surpassingly stupid.” That revelation led to Cox and then Rep. Ron Wyden introducing the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, which would later become Section 230.
The misconception that platforms can somehow lose Section 230 protections for moderating users’ posts has gotten a lot of airtime lately—even serving as the flawed premise of a recent Wired cover story. It’s puzzling that Sen. Cruz would misrepresent one of the most important laws protecting online speech—particularly just a few days after he and his Senate colleagues voted nearly unanimously to undermine that law. (For the record, it’s also puzzling that Zuckerberg claimed not to be familiar with Section 230 when Facebook was one of the largest Internet companies lobbying to undermine it.)
The context of Sen. Cruz’s line of questioning offers some insight into why he misrepresented Section 230: like several Republican members of Congress in both hearings, Sen. Cruz was raising concerns about Facebook allegedly removing posts that represented conservative points of view more often than liberal ones.
There are many good reasons to be concerned about politically motivated takedowns of legitimate online speech. Around the world, the groups silenced on Facebook and other platforms are often those that are marginalized in other areas of public life too.
It’s foolish to suggest that web platforms should lose their Section 230 protections for failing to align their moderation policies to an imaginary standard of political neutrality. Trying to legislate such a “neutrality” requirement for online platforms—besides being unworkable—would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In practice, creating additional hoops for platforms to jump through in order to maintain their Section 230 protections would almost certainly result in fewer opportunities to share controversial opinions online, not more: under Section 230, platforms devoted to niche interests and minority views can thrive.
What’s needed to ensure that a variety of views have a place on social media isn’t creating more legal exceptions to Section 230. Rather, companies should institute reasonable, transparent moderation policies. Platforms shouldn’t over-rely on automated filtering and unintentionally silence legitimate speech and communities in the process. And platforms should add features to give users themselves—not platform owners or third parties—more control over what types of posts they see.. . . "
Clayton you're such a ******* hypocrite. If social media was censoring your people you'd be up on a soapbox denouncing it.
yeah more aggressive against conservatives.You’d have to ask them. I do know they did state that they would be more aggressive In the election season.tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....
Who determines truth and honesty? You?
The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.
yeah more aggressive against conservatives.You’d have to ask them. I do know they did state that they would be more aggressive In the election season.tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....
Who determines truth and honesty? You?
The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.
but not the Ayathollah it seems .....yeah more aggressive against conservatives.You’d have to ask them. I do know they did state that they would be more aggressive In the election season.tell us why your comrades didnt censor it then .....They probably should have censored that. Of course that doesn't really effect the 2020 Presidential election (I hope).the leader of iran wasnt censored when he called the holocaust a lie .....
Who determines truth and honesty? You?
The facts do . Find some credible sources of this "wide spread voter fraud" and the tweets won't be censored any longer when they are about wide spread voter fraud.
Trump is a conservative? LOL.
They are aggressive toward habitual disseminators of misinformation. Like your blob.
