Turley - Biden Harris Censorship - You've been warned America

[HikerGuy83]

Turley, someone smarter than the left-wingers on the board...combined.....

For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg's belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret as a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.

Zuckerberg's sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee.

Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerman is really, really sorry.

Meta CEO Zuckerberg admits he was part of the Biden-Harris censorship scheme. You've been warned, America

Meta CEO Zuckerberg's sudden regret over censorship only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the Biden-Harris team to suppress views.

www.foxnews.com

*******************************************************
Most American's won't care which why they are losing their rights slowly but surely. It's a crying shame.

But in the off-chance they might wake up, we have the VP from the administration that covered up the condition of the Celery Stalk in Charge and also pressured media to bend to their will.

This is disgusting and Harris is right in the middle of it.

That you support her only shows how bad the drug problem is in the country.

 

[Crepitus]

Turley, someone smarter than the left-wingers on the board...combined.....

For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg's belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret as a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.

Zuckerberg's sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee.

Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerman is really, really sorry.

Meta CEO Zuckerberg admits he was part of the Biden-Harris censorship scheme. You've been warned, America

Meta CEO Zuckerberg's sudden regret over censorship only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the Biden-Harris team to suppress views.

www.foxnews.com

*******************************************************
Most American's won't care which why they are losing their rights slowly but surely. It's a crying shame.

But in the off-chance they might wake up, we have the VP from the administration that covered up the condition of the Celery Stalk in Charge and also pressured media to bend to their will.

This is disgusting and Harris is right in the middle of it.

That you support her only shows how bad the drug problem is in the country.

Turley is a paid fuax noize shill.

Noting more.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Funny how they can't take this on.

This or anything else about the Empty Suit.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I often watch old spy movies from the 80s. Preferably based on true stories.but many are fiction due to volume. The.old Soviet system censored with glee. If this is where we are.all headed than we need to stop misrepresenting our systems. In time the economies.follow.the same.path as.well. Perhaps it is all part of a cycle and it wont revert back until powerful, wealthy fools realize how much they also suffer in thr process.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I often watch old spy movies from the 80s. Preferably based on true stories.but many are fiction due to volume. The.old Soviet system censored with glee. If this is where we are.all headed than we need to stop misrepresenting our systems. In time the economies.follow.the same.path as.well. Perhaps it is all part of a cycle and it wont revert back until powerful, wealthy fools realize how much they also suffer in thr process.

I am not interested in taking that chance.

This one needs to be front and center.

 

[Kilroy2]

Zuckerberg's appears to be a registered voter. Yet it is unknown if he is a republican or Democrat. He won't say it.

Probably a smart move by him to keep both sides guessing and rakes in the profits.

He had allowed Trump to post anything he wants whether true or false.

The company has allowed adds from warren and trump

Still Zuckerberg did meet with Trump a few weeks ago

People Say Mark Zuckerberg Is Republican—Is It True?

While many affiliate Mark Zuckerberg with the Republican Party, he hasn't openly announced that he's a Republican.

marketrealist.com

2013, he hosted a fundraiser for Chris Christie,

In 2012, Facebook spent “$140,000 ‘friending’ Republicans,” as opposed to the $127,000 that the company allegedly spent on Democrats, according to CNN Business.

The Zuck is a republican. He just plays both fields as he is a businessman and why would he turn down the money.

He did a town meeting on facebook for Obama

So he is an opportunist and wants to play coy with his political affiliation.

Zuckerberg is being accused of helping “reinstate a video that falsely claims abortion is never medically necessary,” a decision that was made in 2019. Republicans generally stand in opposition or abortion.

So is the Zuck playing us to keep hin living the vida loca

 

[g5000]

Turley, someone smarter than the left-wingers on the board...combined.....

Turley is a partisan hack who regularly pulls shit out of his ass for the entertainment and fearmongering of idiots like you.

Hey, guess what?

C'mere. I need to whisper this. Don't tell anyone.


USMB censors the content of their forum! Alert the media!



.

 

[Crepitus]

Funny how they can't take this on.

This or anything else about the Empty Suit.

Take what on> Your imaginary bullshit?

It destroys itself, no need for us to help.

 

[g5000]

Did someone say "silencing the opposition"?

How quickly the tards forget!

Trump Campaign Denies Press Credentials for Several Journalists​

​

White House revokes press passes for dozens of journalists​

​

 

[HikerGuy83]

Turley is a partisan hack who regularly pulls shit out of his ass for the entertainment and fearmongering of idiots like you.

Hey, guess what?

C'mere. I need to whisper this. Don't tell anyone.

Yes, we've heard this before from you.

You are kindly invited to GFY.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Did someone say "silencing the opposition"?

How quickly the tards forget!

Yep...right on queue.

 

[g5000]

Trump argues in court filing that he can limit journalists’ access to White House​

​

In the past 24 hours, Trump posted this on his failing social media site:

 

[g5000]

Yes, we've heard this before from you.

You are kindly invited to GFY.

Poor hypocrite. Can't stand your own stench.

Sad.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Poor hypocrite. Can't stand your own stench.

Sad.

 

[g5000]

Trump Censorship - You've been warned America​

3 days ago:

Trump Says We ‘Gotta’ Restrict the First Amendment​

​

 

[HikerGuy83]

Trump Censorship - You've been warned America​

3 days ago:

Trump Says We ‘Gotta’ Restrict the First Amendment​

​

Yep...we get that whatabaoutism' s have become your MO.

 

[g5000]

Yep...we get that whatabaoutism' s have become your MO.

I'm sorry your hypocritical bullshit blew up in your face.

Not.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I'm sorry your hypocritical bullshit blew up in your face.

Not.

As we've discussed before, you give yourself waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit.

 

[forkup]

Yep...we get that whatabaoutism' s have become your MO.

Let me then make an argument not relying on a whataboutism.

There is NO constitutional problem, nor is it in any way censorship for the government to REQUEST a PRIVATE company to restrict certain types of speech. NONE.

Every administration has done it and all will. Hate speech, revenge porn, child pornography, or in this case misinformation about a global health emergency.

What the government can't do is REQUIRE those PRIVATE COMPANIES to comply unless the content is actually illegal.


The problem the right has, is not censorship. The problem is that you guys don't just want to be able to say whatever you want. The problem is that you guys want to able to have a megaphone NOT belonging to you to say it. And not just that, you want people not being able to take any action against it, or even criticize it, even when it's actually harmful.

You guys actually want speech to be restricted... namely the speech in opposition to you.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Let me then make an argument not relying on a whataboutism.

And just what that argument would that look like ?

There is NO constitutional problem, nor is it in any way censorship for the government to REQUEST a PRIVATE company to restrict certain types of speech. NONE.

If one of these complaints make it to the SCOTUS, I'll get this right over to them so they know they don't need to deliberate. Is there anything else you want me to share with them ?

Requesting ? Do you work for Harris ?

Every administration has done it and all will.

Yes....we can hear it now.

Hate speech, revenge porn, child pornography,

Crying fire in a crowded theatre....nothing new here.

or in this case misinformation about a global health emergency.

Where those controlling the information didn't know what they were talking about, deeply affecting the most basic functions of life and doing things like calling on people to rat out their fellow citizens. Yeah, that doesn't qualify here. And it never has.

What the government can't do is REQUIRE those PRIVATE COMPANIES to comply unless the content is actually illegal.

They can't prosecute them for not complying. They can certainly pressure and coerce. Which they do to all kinds of entities on a regular basis. In many cases, being way over the line in terms of ethics. But I get that ethics are a nuance when you are trying to run a regime instead of a republic.

The problem the right has, is not censorship. The problem is that you guys don't just want to be able to say whatever you want. The problem is that you guys want to able to have a megaphone NOT belonging to you to say it. And not just that, you want people not being able to take any action against it, or even criticize it, even when it's actually harmful.

Didn't read any of that in the article. Was there something you wanted to quote ? Or are we just grinding an ax ?

You guys actually want speech to be restricted... namely the speech in opposition to you.

Whoever "you guys" is, I am sure they enjoy your lack of definition. But you keep at it.