Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,176
- 1,590
The collusion is real folks. Facebook's and twitter's censorship of Biden's email scandal that is.
THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.
As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.
The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less. Twitter claimed that the Post article violates its so-called “Hacked Materials Policy,” which it says permits “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves”; in other words, Twitter allows links to articles about hacked materials but bans “links to or images of hacked material themselves.”
theintercept.com
Do look at the rationale Twitter and facebook offered... the "hacked materials policy". Somehow president Trump's illegally obtained tax returns were not covered by the policy, how is that? Oops. At this point the discussion relating to 230 is moot, clearly they are a publisher and need to be regarded as such. The discussion should be how to prosecute the treasonous traitors behind the election collusion.
THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.
As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.
The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less. Twitter claimed that the Post article violates its so-called “Hacked Materials Policy,” which it says permits “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves”; in other words, Twitter allows links to articles about hacked materials but bans “links to or images of hacked material themselves.”
Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor
Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.
theintercept.com
Do look at the rationale Twitter and facebook offered... the "hacked materials policy". Somehow president Trump's illegally obtained tax returns were not covered by the policy, how is that? Oops. At this point the discussion relating to 230 is moot, clearly they are a publisher and need to be regarded as such. The discussion should be how to prosecute the treasonous traitors behind the election collusion.
Last edited:
