the 1st Vs Social media

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
63,831
Reaction score
8,127
Points
2,030
When they said Diamond and Silk were dangerous, they were just trying to find a nice way to say it. The real determination was that they were fat ignorant sluts that were using their color to make a fortune by playing to the hatred and stupidity from the right.
So FB is bigoted against fat black women, as are you. And they also ‘determine’ they are ‘sluts’, as do you.

Scratch the surface of a leftard and see the what they really think of the people they pretend to champion - provided they vote leftard and stay on the plantation.

Could you explain how they are dangerous, or are you really just satisfied that because they don’t vote dem they are fat, black, ignorant sluts who should therefore be shut down, bigot?

Don't fat ignorant sluts have freedom of speech in America Tilly?

~S~
Not on FB apparently :dunno:
and that’s OK with Bulldog - apparently.
Apparently, you have no idea what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech doesn't allow them to show their videos anywhere they want just because they appeared on fox.
They were clearly censored for being Trump supporters. But Suckerborg has since apologised and said that the FB enforcers had made an ‘enforcement error’ - so I guess you’re a bit behind with your talking points.
If he wants to show their videos, that's fine, but either way, it has nothing to do with the right of free speech.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,031
Reaction score
11,678
Points
2,030
Location
In a Republic, actually
When they said Diamond and Silk were dangerous, they were just trying to find a nice way to say it. The real determination was that they were fat ignorant sluts that were using their color to make a fortune by playing to the hatred and stupidity from the right.
....and it sold like hotcakes BullDog.....

~S~
Yes, ignorance, hate, and stupidity is very popular among conservatives.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,031
Reaction score
11,678
Points
2,030
Location
In a Republic, actually
FaceBook has been helping the Democrats and hurting the Republicans.(campaigning)
They are censoring content.
They are not being honest.
They can't be trusted.
They have a monopoly on social media.
They censored Diamond and Silk because they were "unsafe to the community", which is scary Orwellian double speak.....Big Brother is watching
How are they "unsafe"?
Are they unsafe because they criticize the Crazy Democrat Cult?
Censorship is a tool of totalitarian one party countries……is this where the Democrats are taking our country?

When they said Diamond and Silk were dangerous, they were just trying to find a nice way to say it. The real determination was that they were fat ignorant sluts that were using their color to make a fortune by playing to the hatred and stupidity from the right.
So FB is bigoted against fat black women, as are you. And they also ‘determine’ they are ‘sluts’, as do you.

Scratch the surface of a leftard and see the what they really think of the people they pretend to champion - provided they vote leftard and stay on the plantation.

Could you explain how they are dangerous, or are you really just satisfied that because they don’t vote dem they are fat, black, ignorant sluts who should therefore be shut down, bigot?

Don't fat ignorant sluts have freedom of speech in America Tilly?

~S~
Of course they do.

But ‘freedom of speech’ has nothing to do with Facebook.

Now, should government seek to silence Diamond and Silk through force of law and punitive measures, then you’d have a free speech issue.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,031
Reaction score
11,678
Points
2,030
Location
In a Republic, actually
Allow me to cut to the chase here

Honest Ads is on the legislative table

They are specifically targeting private industry, IE~ FB>>>


This lack of transparency has dangerous implications for our democracy. As we saw in the 2016 presidential election, foreign actors can seek to influence the electorate without voters’ knowledge. For instance, on September 6th, Facebook disclosed that between June 2015 and May 2017, Russian entities published roughly 3,000 ads linked to fake accounts associated with the pro-Kremlin Internet Research Agency.
Does anyone see a problem with this?

~S~
Anyone who has a problem with it only exhibits his ignorance of the law.

From your link:

‘The Supreme Court has consistently upheld these types of obligations, noting that “[d]isclosure

permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.

This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to

different speakers and messages.”

As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Doe v. Reed, “Requiring people to stand up in public

for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.” Updating our

disclosure laws to include digital political advertising is essential to maintaining a democracy

where citizens can make informed decisions.’

Consequently, the Honest Ads Act is prima facia Constitutional, consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,031
Reaction score
11,678
Points
2,030
Location
In a Republic, actually
When they said Diamond and Silk were dangerous, they were just trying to find a nice way to say it. The real determination was that they were fat ignorant sluts that were using their color to make a fortune by playing to the hatred and stupidity from the right.
So FB is bigoted against fat black women, as are you. And they also ‘determine’ they are ‘sluts’, as do you.

Scratch the surface of a leftard and see the what they really think of the people they pretend to champion - provided they vote leftard and stay on the plantation.

Could you explain how they are dangerous, or are you really just satisfied that because they don’t vote dem they are fat, black, ignorant sluts who should therefore be shut down, bigot?

Don't fat ignorant sluts have freedom of speech in America Tilly?

~S~
Not on FB apparently :dunno:
and that’s OK with Bulldog - apparently.
Apparently, you have no idea what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech doesn't allow them to show their videos anywhere they want just because they appeared on fox.
They were clearly censored for being Trump supporters. But Suckerborg has since apologised and said that the FB enforcers had made an ‘enforcement error’ - so I guess you’re a bit behind with your talking points.
And private media entities, internet platforms, and online hosting sites are at complete liberty to edit or remove content as they see fit, where such editing in no manner ‘violates’ free speech.
 
OP
sparky

sparky

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
16,885
Reaction score
2,943
Points
280
Location
paradise
Allow me to cut to the chase here

Honest Ads is on the legislative table

They are specifically targeting private industry, IE~ FB>>>


This lack of transparency has dangerous implications for our democracy. As we saw in the 2016 presidential election, foreign actors can seek to influence the electorate without voters’ knowledge. For instance, on September 6th, Facebook disclosed that between June 2015 and May 2017, Russian entities published roughly 3,000 ads linked to fake accounts associated with the pro-Kremlin Internet Research Agency.
Does anyone see a problem with this?

~S~
Anyone who has a problem with it only exhibits his ignorance of the law.

From your link:

‘The Supreme Court has consistently upheld these types of obligations, noting that “[d]isclosure

permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.

This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to

different speakers and messages.”

As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Doe v. Reed, “Requiring people to stand up in public

for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.” Updating our

disclosure laws to include digital political advertising is essential to maintaining a democracy

where citizens can make informed decisions.’

Consequently, the Honest Ads Act is prima facia Constitutional, consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Then i guess i'm in need of an education Clayton, because i see the HA act as a means for the gub'mit to confront what private industry is putting up for political advertising

What is the difference betwixt that , and all these banners i drive by around here on private biz? (there's a LOT of 'em)




Perhaps reading some pro's con's might help...?

~S~
 

Tilly

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
13,286
Reaction score
4,869
Points
390
Location
Erob: Where the Sun Sets West of Phoenecia
So FB is bigoted against fat black women, as are you. And they also ‘determine’ they are ‘sluts’, as do you.

Scratch the surface of a leftard and see the what they really think of the people they pretend to champion - provided they vote leftard and stay on the plantation.

Could you explain how they are dangerous, or are you really just satisfied that because they don’t vote dem they are fat, black, ignorant sluts who should therefore be shut down, bigot?

Don't fat ignorant sluts have freedom of speech in America Tilly?

~S~
Not on FB apparently :dunno:
and that’s OK with Bulldog - apparently.
Apparently, you have no idea what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech doesn't allow them to show their videos anywhere they want just because they appeared on fox.
They were clearly censored for being Trump supporters. But Suckerborg has since apologised and said that the FB enforcers had made an ‘enforcement error’ - so I guess you’re a bit behind with your talking points.
If he wants to show their videos, that's fine, but either way, it has nothing to do with the right of free speech.
It has to do with censorship and you were clearly thrilled they’d been censored. You also claimed they were dangerous but you have yet to explain how.
I’m glad he apologised and said it was an error (even though I doubt the veracity of this statement) and that the women you refer to as ‘fat ignorant sluts’ will no longer be censored by FB since Suckerborg repeatedly claims to be aiming for greater fairness in allowing the expression of the views of both the left and the right.
So how are they dangerous in your view?
 

regent

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
1,120
Points
245
It was our first conservative party, the Federalists, that passed laws against free speech. It was also the end of that first party, and the period after was called the Era of good feelings.
 
OP
sparky

sparky

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
16,885
Reaction score
2,943
Points
280
Location
paradise
I've read some of the federalist papers , but sadly missed that regent

~S~
 

regent

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
1,120
Points
245
I've read some of the federalist papers , but sadly missed that regent

~S~
The Federalist Papers were "letters to the editor." The Sedition Act occurred during the Adams administration.
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top