Psaki reveals White House (government) is consulting with Facebook to 'flag misinformation'

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is all proof that dblack hates Trump more than he loves liberty.

 

[dblack]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

You have left out a very important fact here, dblack

If the White House calls you up and says "hey, we want you to censor any anti-socialist stuff on your site" and you weren't doing it before, now what?

You can make all the excuses in the world you want, but you know goddamn well that this is fascist horse shit.

Let's flip it around on you. Government wants socialism. They want to eliminate any anti-socialism statements or comments. They pressure Facebook to kick you the fuck off for saying anything about free speech on any platform not just Facebook. They call up USMB, and tell them, "kick all everybody off who is anti-socialist are we gonna find a reason to fuck you up.". Or, "you don't get all this funding we have sitting around if you don't do it."

Sure - that's dead wrong. If there are threats and coercion going on, and you have evidence of that - let's nail them. But I don't honestly think that's what's going on.

What you pussies are too cowardly to face is that people are fed up with Trumpster dumbfuckery. And a lot of those people run businesses, so they are "colluding" to give you the boot. Too bad. Maybe if you weren't such ignorant jackasses it wouldn't have happened.

So if a private citizen just wants to go onto your house and take out a bunch of evidence and give it to the police, you're OK with that?

Not unless I invite them to so. What does that have to with anything?

 

[dblack]

This is all proof that dblack hates Trump more than he loves liberty.

No, it's proof that you've been conned out your principles. And you know it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

You have left out a very important fact here, dblack

If the White House calls you up and says "hey, we want you to censor any anti-socialist stuff on your site" and you weren't doing it before, now what?

You can make all the excuses in the world you want, but you know goddamn well that this is fascist horse shit.

Let's flip it around on you. Government wants socialism. They want to eliminate any anti-socialism statements or comments. They pressure Facebook to kick you the fuck off for saying anything about free speech on any platform not just Facebook. They call up USMB, and tell them, "kick all everybody off who is anti-socialist are we gonna find a reason to fuck you up.". Or, "you don't get all this funding we have sitting around if you don't do it."

Sure - that's dead wrong. If there are threats and coercion going on, and you have evidence of that - let's nail them. But I don't honestly think that's what's going on.

What you pussies are too cowardly to face is that people are fed up with Trumpster dumbfuckery. And a lot of those people run businesses, so they are "colluding" to give you the boot. Too bad. Maybe if you weren't such ignorant jackasses it wouldn't have happened.

So if a private citizen just wants to go onto your house and take out a bunch of evidence and give it to the police, you're OK with that?

Not unless I invite them to so. What does that have to with anything?

So one of your buddies decides that he wants to turn you in, and colludes with police about it, then goes into your house invited, and sneaks out with some evidence that he gives to the police.



Do you know what the caselaw is on that? Have you even looked into it?

 

[dblack]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

You have left out a very important fact here, dblack

If the White House calls you up and says "hey, we want you to censor any anti-socialist stuff on your site" and you weren't doing it before, now what?

You can make all the excuses in the world you want, but you know goddamn well that this is fascist horse shit.

Let's flip it around on you. Government wants socialism. They want to eliminate any anti-socialism statements or comments. They pressure Facebook to kick you the fuck off for saying anything about free speech on any platform not just Facebook. They call up USMB, and tell them, "kick all everybody off who is anti-socialist are we gonna find a reason to fuck you up.". Or, "you don't get all this funding we have sitting around if you don't do it."

Sure - that's dead wrong. If there are threats and coercion going on, and you have evidence of that - let's nail them. But I don't honestly think that's what's going on.

What you pussies are too cowardly to face is that people are fed up with Trumpster dumbfuckery. And a lot of those people run businesses, so they are "colluding" to give you the boot. Too bad. Maybe if you weren't such ignorant jackasses it wouldn't have happened.

So if a private citizen just wants to go onto your house and take out a bunch of evidence and give it to the police, you're OK with that?

Not unless I invite them to so. What does that have to with anything?

So one of your buddies decides that he wants to turn you in, and goes into your house invited, and sneaks out with some evidence that he gives to the police.

Sneaks? You mean he steals from me? No, I'd never condone that. What does that have to do with jack fuck?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is all proof that dblack hates Trump more than he loves liberty.

No, it's proof that you've been conned out your principles. And you know it.

Conned out of my principles?

My principles are very simple.

The remedy to bad speech is not censorship of any kind, it is more speech.

Perhaps some of these ass clowns should get out of the business of pretending to be a platform.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

You have left out a very important fact here, dblack

If the White House calls you up and says "hey, we want you to censor any anti-socialist stuff on your site" and you weren't doing it before, now what?

You can make all the excuses in the world you want, but you know goddamn well that this is fascist horse shit.

Let's flip it around on you. Government wants socialism. They want to eliminate any anti-socialism statements or comments. They pressure Facebook to kick you the fuck off for saying anything about free speech on any platform not just Facebook. They call up USMB, and tell them, "kick all everybody off who is anti-socialist are we gonna find a reason to fuck you up.". Or, "you don't get all this funding we have sitting around if you don't do it."

Sure - that's dead wrong. If there are threats and coercion going on, and you have evidence of that - let's nail them. But I don't honestly think that's what's going on.

What you pussies are too cowardly to face is that people are fed up with Trumpster dumbfuckery. And a lot of those people run businesses, so they are "colluding" to give you the boot. Too bad. Maybe if you weren't such ignorant jackasses it wouldn't have happened.

So if a private citizen just wants to go onto your house and take out a bunch of evidence and give it to the police, you're OK with that?

Not unless I invite them to so. What does that have to with anything?

So one of your buddies decides that he wants to turn you in, and goes into your house invited, and sneaks out with some evidence that he gives to the police.

Sneaks? You mean he steals from me? No, I'd never condone that. What does that have to do with jack fuck?

Obviously you don't understand the concept of analogous circumstances where government uses a third-party as a tool to violate one's constitutional rights.

I tried, but apparently you're willfully being a dumb fuck.

 

[dblack]

This is all proof that dblack hates Trump more than he loves liberty.

No, it's proof that you've been conned out your principles. And you know it.

Conned out of my principles?

My principles are very simple.

The remedy to bad speech is not censorship of any kind, it is more speech.

Perhaps some of these ass clowns should get out of the business of pretending to be a platform.

Right, and bakers who don't want to serve gays should get out of the business of baking.

Same shit, different hypocrite.

 

[wamose]

Nobody spreads misinformation like the Biden administration. I've never seen so much one sided propaganda in 70 years.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Right, and bakers who don't want to serve gays should get out of the business of baking.

Wrong. Baker, if you don't wanna serve gays you should not pretend like they want to, and then pull the switch on them.

Furthermore, government shouldn't be coming around telling you that you must serve gays, and you comply due to government pressure.

You clearly don't get the fucking issues here do you?

 

[dblack]

Right, and bakers who don't want to serve gays should get out of the business of baking.

Wrong. Baker, if you don't wanna serve gays you should not pretend like they want to, and then pull the switch on them.

You clearly don't get the fucking issues here do you?

I get it fine.

You know, I think what really bothers you all is that I make more compelling arguments for free markets and individual liberty than you can even imagine. And it gnaws at you that I haven't climbed on the Trump crazy train. I'm not sorry about that. I'm sorry that you've chosen to sell out your supposed values.

 

[Shelzin]

Right, and bakers who don't want to serve gays should get out of the business of baking.

Wrong. Baker, if you don't wanna serve gays you should not pretend like they want to, and then pull the switch on them.

You clearly don't get the fucking issues here do you?

I get it fine.

You know, I think what really bothers you all is that I make more compelling arguments for free markets and individual liberty than you can even imagine. And it gnaws at you that I haven't climbed on the Trump crazy train. I'm not sorry about that. I'm sorry that you've chosen to sell out your supposed values.

Well... Again... To be fair... Your analogy wasn't a good one.

It would be more like the government telling the baker that they can't serve certain people. Not that the government telling the baker has to serve certain people, or that they have a choice to not serve.

Edit: If there was a legal issue in there somewhere... It would make sense. But... I'm not seeing that.

 

[Vel]

This is all proof that dblack hates Trump more than he loves liberty.

No, it's proof that you've been conned out your principles. And you know it.

That Jen Psaki came out today and said that the government was coordinating with Facebook and other tech platforms by flagging posts and providing them with the information that the government wants propagated should terrify any liberty loving American. This is far beyond private businesses making censorship decisions. Psaki proudly announced that the GOVERNMENT was choosing which posts to flag and the GOVERNMENT is providing approved information ( otherwise known as propaganda ) for the platforms to disseminate. That same government has the power to regulate those platforms and to help or hinder competition to them. There doesn't have to be proof of coercion for people to see that there is a conflict of interest. Do you hate Trump more than you love liberty?

 

[Nostra]

Government is censoring free speech.

Explain how.

By monitoring American's posts and telling FAcebook which ones to ban, you fucking idiot.

 

[AZrailwhale]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation
Critics roundly condemned the White House after Press Secretary Jen Psaki revealed the Biden administration is working with Facebook to flag "problematic" posts that "spread disinformation" on COVID-19.

On Thursday, Psaki was asked a question regarding the Biden administration’s request for tech companies to be more "aggressive" when policing what they referred to as "misinformation." Psaki revealed that the White House is "in regular touch with social media platforms" to handle it.

COMMENT:

BOOOM!!! That is GOVERNMENT using Facebook as a tool of censorship!!!

1ST AMENDMENT WILL APPLY!!!

dblack?

Corporations cannot do on behalf of gubmint, what gubmint itself is prohibited from doing.

Of course they can. Why not?

Because SCOTaUS ruled that way long ago.

 

[Oddball]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation
Critics roundly condemned the White House after Press Secretary Jen Psaki revealed the Biden administration is working with Facebook to flag "problematic" posts that "spread disinformation" on COVID-19.

On Thursday, Psaki was asked a question regarding the Biden administration’s request for tech companies to be more "aggressive" when policing what they referred to as "misinformation." Psaki revealed that the White House is "in regular touch with social media platforms" to handle it.

COMMENT:

BOOOM!!! That is GOVERNMENT using Facebook as a tool of censorship!!!

1ST AMENDMENT WILL APPLY!!!

dblack?

Corporations cannot do on behalf of gubmint, what gubmint itself is prohibited from doing.

Of course they can. Why not?

Because SCOTaUS ruled that way long ago.

There was already a link 'splaining prior restraint posted, but the fake gliberetarian ignored it.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Government is censoring free speech.

Explain how.

When a company (i.e. Twitter, etc.) restricts speech on its forums, that's one thing, but when the government "tells" companies to restrict speech they don't like, that is a clear violation of the Constitution's First Amendment. This is a clear matter for the Supreme Court to address when it goes up the judicial chain.

 

[Oddball]

Government is censoring free speech.

Explain how.

When a company (i.e. Twitter, etc.) restricts speech on its forums, that's one thing, but when the government "tells" companies to restrict speech they don't like, that is a clear violation of the Constitution's First Amendment. This is a clear matter for the Supreme Court to address when it goes up the judicial chain.

Once again, the legal term is "prior restraint", and the courts, including USSC, haven't looked upon it favorably at all.

 

[dudmuck]

Government is censoring free speech.

Explain how.

When a company (i.e. Twitter, etc.) restricts speech on its forums, that's one thing, but when the government "tells" companies to restrict speech they don't like, that is a clear violation of the Constitution's First Amendment. This is a clear matter for the Supreme Court to address when it goes up the judicial chain.

you should familiarize yourself with exceptions to free speech; with attention to the section "false statements of fact".

for example, instructions on bomb making arent protected.
Misinformation on covid could cause equivalent harm.

however, i think they are only labelling false statements as such, rather than removing them.