is censoring negative news about a candidate by the msm an attempt to sway an election .

[dblack]

the censorship and the blocking of truthful negative info about the Biden family by the msm and social media is absolutely a form of election rigging ! imagine the lefts outrage if info about Trump or his family were hidden and censored even banned by the msm and social media in order to help him win against Biden ! and it happened folks ! even though the liars on the left will down play it ! if the shoe were on the other foot the left would be in streets rioting day in and day out !

The thread premise is a lie.

The media are neither rigging elections nor censoring information about Biden.

bull ! Twitter banned all info about Hunters laptop and info about nepotism ! the msm wouldnt report it !

Is that what you are meowing about? Trump's tax returns and other myriad and sundry Trump nefarious activities have also been blocked when possible by MSM.
Do you know what the nepotism info and other info are on Hunter's laptop
or are you just assuming and hoping?

what ! his attorneys blocked the release of his taxis ! the msm a social media have been bitching about his taxes for yrs ! lol ! nice try commie!

Not all the MSM, hotshot. Fox News and others like it have taken another tack.
Trump's other nefarious activities have been twisted for years by Fox and others, yes? You are only referring to the "fake" media outlets. Again, what is in Hunter's laptop that has you all in a tizzy, or don't you know? What!!

the truth is the truth commie ! Chris Wallis has been tough on Trump . Rivera has been tough on Trump when he disagreed with him ... name one thing negative the msm has said about Biden ! why did twitter actualy ban people posting truthful negative things about the Biden family ?? dont try to say the left and the msm didnt censor Americans in order to effect the election !

Nah. How did the MSM censor Americans? Trump lost it all by himself without any help. Stop being so bitter and move on.

They actively, and pretty obviously, suppressed the Hunter Biden stuff. Not sure if it made the difference. I'm guessing it was a drop in the very large bucket of misinformation spewing from all directions.

 

[asaratis]

the censorship and the blocking of truthful negative info about the Biden family by the msm and social media is absolutely a form of election rigging ! imagine the lefts outrage if info about Trump or his family were hidden and censored even banned by the msm and social media in order to help him win against Biden ! and it happened folks ! even though the liars on the left will down play it ! if the shoe were on the other foot the left would be in streets rioting day in and day out !

Attempting to sway the election (something many of us spent a lot of time doing on this message board) is not "a form of election rigging."

but the news media are supposed to be impartial ... nice deflection ! you know and i know the left would be screaming bloody murder if they were given the same treatment ...you have no problem with censorship ...i get ...commie .

It's not a deflection. When you use the term "election rigging" you're implying that what they did should be illegal - which turns the conversation in a very different direction. I totally agree that their bias is obvious and shitty. It's why I don't watch TV, and why I take the MSM with a very large grain of salt. But if you are claiming it as justification for regulating these media sources, that would be far worse.

If the news media, tasked to deliver the news, the whole news and nothing but the news (with editorials so identified) deliberately suppresses news regarding a certain candidate that the editors may support, they are interfering with the fairness of the election. (They are rigging it in favor of their candidate.)

All voters have a right and a need to know ALL of the truth about opposing candidates. Voters who are not exposed to the whole truth about their favored candidate may end up voting for a sleazy bastard like Joe Biden after being denied news about his true character.

 

[dblack]

the censorship and the blocking of truthful negative info about the Biden family by the msm and social media is absolutely a form of election rigging ! imagine the lefts outrage if info about Trump or his family were hidden and censored even banned by the msm and social media in order to help him win against Biden ! and it happened folks ! even though the liars on the left will down play it ! if the shoe were on the other foot the left would be in streets rioting day in and day out !

Attempting to sway the election (something many of us spent a lot of time doing on this message board) is not "a form of election rigging."

but the news media are supposed to be impartial ... nice deflection ! you know and i know the left would be screaming bloody murder if they were given the same treatment ...you have no problem with censorship ...i get ...commie .

It's not a deflection. When you use the term "election rigging" you're implying that what they did should be illegal - which turns the conversation in a very different direction. I totally agree that their bias is obvious and shitty. It's why I don't watch TV, and why I take the MSM with a very large grain of salt. But if you are claiming it as justification for regulating these media sources, that would be far worse.

If the news media, tasked to deliver the news, the whole news and nothing but the news (with editorials so identified) deliberately suppresses news regarding a certain candidate that the editors may support, they are interfering with the fairness of the election. (They are rigging it in favor of their candidate.)

All voters have a right and a need to know ALL of the truth about opposing candidates. Voters who are not exposed to the whole truth about their favored candidate may end up voting for a sleazy bastard like Joe Biden after being denied news about his true character.

So are you advocating for state intervention?

 

[asaratis]

the censorship and the blocking of truthful negative info about the Biden family by the msm and social media is absolutely a form of election rigging ! imagine the lefts outrage if info about Trump or his family were hidden and censored even banned by the msm and social media in order to help him win against Biden ! and it happened folks ! even though the liars on the left will down play it ! if the shoe were on the other foot the left would be in streets rioting day in and day out !

Attempting to sway the election (something many of us spent a lot of time doing on this message board) is not "a form of election rigging."

but the news media are supposed to be impartial ... nice deflection ! you know and i know the left would be screaming bloody murder if they were given the same treatment ...you have no problem with censorship ...i get ...commie .

It's not a deflection. When you use the term "election rigging" you're implying that what they did should be illegal - which turns the conversation in a very different direction. I totally agree that their bias is obvious and shitty. It's why I don't watch TV, and why I take the MSM with a very large grain of salt. But if you are claiming it as justification for regulating these media sources, that would be far worse.

If the news media, tasked to deliver the news, the whole news and nothing but the news (with editorials so identified) deliberately suppresses news regarding a certain candidate that the editors may support, they are interfering with the fairness of the election. (They are rigging it in favor of their candidate.)

All voters have a right and a need to know ALL of the truth about opposing candidates. Voters who are not exposed to the whole truth about their favored candidate may end up voting for a sleazy bastard like Joe Biden after being denied news about his true character.

So are you advocating for state intervention?

No. The government should not dictate what the media publishes or which news outlets voters choose to subscribe to or watch.

However, the government should deny Big Tech public information platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, all search engines, et. al.) the ability to steer users to their favorite sources of news or to suppress negative comments about their preferred candidates by deliberately excluding negative information from their user comments and search results.

With the Hunter Biden Expose, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than The Actual Story

Unprecedented efforts to squelch information about a New York Post story may prove to be more dangerous corruption than whatever Hunter Biden did with a crooked Ukrainian energy company

taibbi.substack.com

Their motive was to interfere with the free election of our President by suppressing negative press about the sleazy bastard, Joe Biden.

 

[dblack]

So are you advocating for state intervention?

No. The government should not dictate what the media publishes or which news outlets voters choose to subscribe to or watch.

But ...

However, the government should deny Big Tech public information platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, all search engines, et. al.) the ability to steer users to their favorite sources of news or to suppress negative comments about their preferred candidates by deliberately excluding negative information from their user comments and search results.

LOL - I've never heard of "typing" out of both sides of your mouth. Interesting.

 

[asaratis]

So are you advocating for state intervention?

No. The government should not dictate what the media publishes or which news outlets voters choose to subscribe to or watch.

But ...

However, the government should deny Big Tech public information platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, all search engines, et. al.) the ability to steer users to their favorite sources of news or to suppress negative comments about their preferred candidates by deliberately excluding negative information from their user comments and search results.

LOL - I've never heard of "typing" out of both sides of your mouth. Interesting.

Big Tech is not the news media albeit they are in cahoots with the news media. They enjoy immunity from prosecution for libel and slander by pretending to be an open platform, free speech entity. The should be denied this immunity afforded them by Section 230.

Big Tech's favorite law is under fire

This has nothing to do with censorship of the news media.

Go to school.

 

[themirrorthief]

the censorship and the blocking of truthful negative info about the Biden family by the msm and social media is absolutely a form of election rigging ! imagine the lefts outrage if info about Trump or his family were hidden and censored even banned by the msm and social media in order to help him win against Biden ! and it happened folks ! even though the liars on the left will down play it ! if the shoe were on the other foot the left would be in streets rioting day in and day out !

I bet they wish that could have killed that video of poor old sick Joe crawling into a airplane

 

[dblack]

So are you advocating for state intervention?

No. The government should not dictate what the media publishes or which news outlets voters choose to subscribe to or watch.

But ...

However, the government should deny Big Tech public information platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, all search engines, et. al.) the ability to steer users to their favorite sources of news or to suppress negative comments about their preferred candidates by deliberately excluding negative information from their user comments and search results.

LOL - I've never heard of "typing" out of both sides of your mouth. Interesting.

Big Tech is not the news media albeit they are in cahoots with the news media. They enjoy immunity from prosecution for libel and slander by pretending to be an open platform, free speech entity. The should be denied this immunity afforded them by Section 230.

They should just repeal that. Then you guys could quit whining about it (and stop using in as an excuse for big brother government). The courts would just hammer out precedent that would establish the same thing anyway. We're not going dismantle the internet because Twitter was mean to Trump.

 

[asaratis]

So are you advocating for state intervention?

No. The government should not dictate what the media publishes or which news outlets voters choose to subscribe to or watch.

But ...

However, the government should deny Big Tech public information platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, all search engines, et. al.) the ability to steer users to their favorite sources of news or to suppress negative comments about their preferred candidates by deliberately excluding negative information from their user comments and search results.

LOL - I've never heard of "typing" out of both sides of your mouth. Interesting.

Big Tech is not the news media albeit they are in cahoots with the news media. They enjoy immunity from prosecution for libel and slander by pretending to be an open platform, free speech entity. The should be denied this immunity afforded them by Section 230.

They should just repeal that. Then you guys could quit whining about it (and stop using in as an excuse for big brother government). The courts would just hammer out precedent that would establish the same thing anyway. We're not going dismantle the internet because Twitter was mean to Trump.

Removing their protection can't stop them from banning whomever they want to ban. It will just open the door for them to be sued into bankruptcy. To hell with them all.

 

[dblack]

So are you advocating for state intervention?

No. The government should not dictate what the media publishes or which news outlets voters choose to subscribe to or watch.

But ...

However, the government should deny Big Tech public information platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, all search engines, et. al.) the ability to steer users to their favorite sources of news or to suppress negative comments about their preferred candidates by deliberately excluding negative information from their user comments and search results.

LOL - I've never heard of "typing" out of both sides of your mouth. Interesting.

Big Tech is not the news media albeit they are in cahoots with the news media. They enjoy immunity from prosecution for libel and slander by pretending to be an open platform, free speech entity. The should be denied this immunity afforded them by Section 230.

They should just repeal that. Then you guys could quit whining about it (and stop using in as an excuse for big brother government). The courts would just hammer out precedent that would establish the same thing anyway. We're not going dismantle the internet because Twitter was mean to Trump.

Removing their protection can't stop them from banning whomever they want to ban. It will just open the door for them to be sued into bankruptcy. To hell with them all.

It really won't. Courts will work out precedent that still allows them to operate pretty much the way they way they're operating now - because that's what people want.

That's what you don't get. If people want to go to a website that censors content, they have every right to. If they want to watch news media that tells them what they want to hear, they have that right as well. And no political party should be allowed to use media regulation to tell them they can't.

 

[asaratis]

So are you advocating for state intervention?

No. The government should not dictate what the media publishes or which news outlets voters choose to subscribe to or watch.

But ...

However, the government should deny Big Tech public information platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, all search engines, et. al.) the ability to steer users to their favorite sources of news or to suppress negative comments about their preferred candidates by deliberately excluding negative information from their user comments and search results.

LOL - I've never heard of "typing" out of both sides of your mouth. Interesting.

Big Tech is not the news media albeit they are in cahoots with the news media. They enjoy immunity from prosecution for libel and slander by pretending to be an open platform, free speech entity. The should be denied this immunity afforded them by Section 230.

They should just repeal that. Then you guys could quit whining about it (and stop using in as an excuse for big brother government). The courts would just hammer out precedent that would establish the same thing anyway. We're not going dismantle the internet because Twitter was mean to Trump.

Removing their protection can't stop them from banning whomever they want to ban. It will just open the door for them to be sued into bankruptcy. To hell with them all.

It really won't. Courts will work out precedent that still allows them to operate pretty much the way they way they're operating now - because that's what people want.

That's what you don't get. If people want to go to a website that censors content, they have every right to. If they want to watch news media that tells them what they want to hear, they have that right as well. And no political party should be allowed to use media regulation to tell them they can't.

Oh, I get it alright. It's you that lacks understanding of what I said.

I've already stated that people can read and view whatever they choose in the media outlets. I've also stated that the media and Big Tech are not the same. Big Tech is currently protected from lawsuits by Section 230 because they claim to be public free speech platforms and not to be publishers. The media outlets are PUBLISHERS and are NOT PROTECTED by Section 230.

If Big Tech is denied the protection of Section 230, they will become publishers and will no longer be able to offer free speech to the public without exposing themselves to the likelihood of lawsuits resulting from users posting libel in writing, slander in videos or violations of copyright in either form.

Big Tech will be forced to read all posts and view all videos before publishing them to weed out libel/slander/copyright infractions. IOW, they will have to edit and censor the content. There will be no free speech. They will lose users in droves and eventually go out of business.

 

[westwall]

the censorship and the blocking of truthful negative info about the Biden family by the msm and social media is absolutely a form of election rigging ! imagine the lefts outrage if info about Trump or his family were hidden and censored even banned by the msm and social media in order to help him win against Biden ! and it happened folks ! even though the liars on the left will down play it ! if the shoe were on the other foot the left would be in streets rioting day in and day out !

Yes, it is. The media is the enemy of the people.

 

[Bobob]

the censorship and the blocking of truthful negative info about the Biden family by the msm and social media is absolutely a form of election rigging ! imagine the lefts outrage if info about Trump or his family were hidden and censored even banned by the msm and social media in order to help him win against Biden ! and it happened folks ! even though the liars on the left will down play it ! if the shoe were on the other foot the left would be in streets rioting day in and day out !

The thread premise is a lie.

The media are neither rigging elections nor censoring information about Biden.

bull ! Twitter banned all info about Hunters laptop and info about nepotism ! the msm wouldnt report it !

Is that what you are meowing about? Trump's tax returns and other myriad and sundry Trump nefarious activities have also been blocked when possible by MSM.
Do you know what the nepotism info and other info are on Hunter's laptop
or are you just assuming and hoping?

what ! his attorneys blocked the release of his taxis ! the msm a social media have been bitching about his taxes for yrs ! lol ! nice try commie!

Not all the MSM, hotshot. Fox News and others like it have taken another tack.
Trump's other nefarious activities have been twisted for years by Fox and others, yes? You are only referring to the "fake" media outlets. Again, what is in Hunter's laptop that has you all in a tizzy, or don't you know? What!!

the truth is the truth commie ! Chris Wallis has been tough on Trump . Rivera has been tough on Trump when he disagreed with him ... name one thing negative the msm has said about Biden ! why did twitter actualy ban people posting truthful negative things about the Biden family ?? dont try to say the left and the msm didnt censor Americans in order to effect the election !

Nah. How did the MSM censor Americans? Trump lost it all by himself without any help. Stop being so bitter and move on.

They actively, and pretty obviously, suppressed the Hunter Biden stuff. Not sure if it made the difference. I'm guessing it was a drop in the very large bucket of misinformation spewing from all directions.

Maybe there wasn't stuff enough to bother with. I still haven't heard anything with teeth except for unfounded accusations founded by Trump and swallowed by his base.

 

[dblack]

That's what you don't get. If people want to go to a website that censors content, they have every right to. If they want to watch news media that tells them what they want to hear, they have that right as well. And no political party should be allowed to use media regulation to tell them they can't.

Oh, I get it alright. It's you that lacks understanding of what I said.

I've already stated that people can read and view whatever they choose in the media outlets. I've also stated that the media and Big Tech are not the same. Big Tech is currently protected from lawsuits by Section 230 because they claim to be public free speech platforms and not to be publishers. The media outlets are PUBLISHERS and are NOT PROTECTED by Section 230.

Not interested in the hair-splitting and excuse making.

If Big Tech is denied the protection of Section 230, they will become publishers and will no longer be able to offer free speech to the public without exposing themselves to the likelihood of lawsuits resulting from users posting libel in writing, slander in videos or violations of copyright in either form.

Big Tech will be forced to read all posts and view all videos before publishing them to weed out libel/slander/copyright infractions. IOW, they will have to edit and censor the content. There will be no free speech. They will lose users in droves and eventually go out of business.

That may be your wet dream, but I don't think it would shake out like that. They'd amend their TOSs, and the courts would set precedent establishing basically the same policy that 230 codifies. As I said, we're not going to shut down social media because Facebook refused to host Trump's propaganda.

I'm glad that you oppose state regulation of the media, at least you have some respect for free speech. But targeting the "Big Tech" aka social media sites because they didn't play ball with Trump is just political retribution - big brother government at its worst.

The sad thing is, Democrats want to control social media just as badly as you do. This convergence of goals pretty much ensures that it will happen.

 

[asaratis]

That's what you don't get. If people want to go to a website that censors content, they have every right to. If they want to watch news media that tells them what they want to hear, they have that right as well. And no political party should be allowed to use media regulation to tell them they can't.

Oh, I get it alright. It's you that lacks understanding of what I said.

I've already stated that people can read and view whatever they choose in the media outlets. I've also stated that the media and Big Tech are not the same. Big Tech is currently protected from lawsuits by Section 230 because they claim to be public free speech platforms and not to be publishers. The media outlets are PUBLISHERS and are NOT PROTECTED by Section 230.

Not interested in the hair-splitting and excuse making.

If Big Tech is denied the protection of Section 230, they will become publishers and will no longer be able to offer free speech to the public without exposing themselves to the likelihood of lawsuits resulting from users posting libel in writing, slander in videos or violations of copyright in either form.

Big Tech will be forced to read all posts and view all videos before publishing them to weed out libel/slander/copyright infractions. IOW, they will have to edit and censor the content. There will be no free speech. They will lose users in droves and eventually go out of business.

That may be your wet dream, but I don't think it would shake out like that. They'd amend their TOSs, and the courts would set precedent establishing basically the same policy that 230 codifies. As I said, we're not going to shut down social media because Facebook refused to host Trump's propaganda.

I'm glad that you oppose state regulation of the media, at least you have some respect for free speech. But targeting the "Big Tech" aka social media sites because they didn't play ball with Trump is just political retribution - big brother government at its worst.

The sad thing is, Democrats want to control social media just as badly as you do. This convergence of goals pretty much ensures that it will happen.

What you're not interested in is knowing the truth.

 

[dblack]

That's what you don't get. If people want to go to a website that censors content, they have every right to. If they want to watch news media that tells them what they want to hear, they have that right as well. And no political party should be allowed to use media regulation to tell them they can't.

Oh, I get it alright. It's you that lacks understanding of what I said.

I've already stated that people can read and view whatever they choose in the media outlets. I've also stated that the media and Big Tech are not the same. Big Tech is currently protected from lawsuits by Section 230 because they claim to be public free speech platforms and not to be publishers. The media outlets are PUBLISHERS and are NOT PROTECTED by Section 230.

Not interested in the hair-splitting and excuse making.

If Big Tech is denied the protection of Section 230, they will become publishers and will no longer be able to offer free speech to the public without exposing themselves to the likelihood of lawsuits resulting from users posting libel in writing, slander in videos or violations of copyright in either form.

Big Tech will be forced to read all posts and view all videos before publishing them to weed out libel/slander/copyright infractions. IOW, they will have to edit and censor the content. There will be no free speech. They will lose users in droves and eventually go out of business.

That may be your wet dream, but I don't think it would shake out like that. They'd amend their TOSs, and the courts would set precedent establishing basically the same policy that 230 codifies. As I said, we're not going to shut down social media because Facebook refused to host Trump's propaganda.

I'm glad that you oppose state regulation of the media, at least you have some respect for free speech. But targeting the "Big Tech" aka social media sites because they didn't play ball with Trump is just political retribution - big brother government at its worst.

The sad thing is, Democrats want to control social media just as badly as you do. This convergence of goals pretty much ensures that it will happen.

What you're not interested in is knowing the truth.

???

 

[yidnar]

the censorship and the blocking of truthful negative info about the Biden family by the msm and social media is absolutely a form of election rigging ! imagine the lefts outrage if info about Trump or his family were hidden and censored even banned by the msm and social media in order to help him win against Biden ! and it happened folks ! even though the liars on the left will down play it ! if the shoe were on the other foot the left would be in streets rioting day in and day out !

correction ...the left is rioting in the streets day in and day out ...