Twitter and Facebook Execs Should be Indicted for Interfering in a US Election

[colfax_m]

Of course they did. They censored news that was vry incriminating to Biden. That was worth at least 100 million to him

That's not a campaign contribution. That's freedom of speech.

Citizen's United vs FEC.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No article here. I just want to start a discussion on the subject.

They are not interfering in our elections. They have every right to determine what goes on their platform. If there is any election interference then it is the so-called e-mails. The story stinks of high heaven. Hunter Biden would have called a tech to fix it on-site not take it to a obscure store and leave it. This is fake news and brings up the possibility the Russians are interfering and using this as part of their ongoing effort to denigrate Biden.

I just heard, "It's perfectly okay and wonderful for them to do this, because it helps my candidate! This story is fake because I want it to be, and therefore it's okay to block its publishing, because nothing should ever be said that I don't like!"

 

[bripat9643]

Of course they did. They censored news that was vry incriminating to Biden. That was worth at least 100 million to him

That's not a campaign contribution. That's freedom of speech.

Citizen's United vs FEC.

It's the exact opposite of freedom of speech, moron.

You obviously don't have a clue as to what Citizens United V. FEC was about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No article here. I just want to start a discussion on the subject.

last i checked they're run by americans.....?

It's not illegal lol

It actually is. They are protected from lawsuits for being "common carriers" but they are acting as publishers.

The bottom line: current management of these platforms is done for.

No they are not. A publisher makes a agreement with a writer to write something. Neither twitter or Facebook do this.

Too bad for you that the law uses the definitions written into the law, not whatever the **** your talking points told you to believe this morning.

Legally, publishing is the act of distributing or otherwise making public a visual or literary work. Please note that there is nothing in that definition about "contracts".

 

[Cecilie1200]

They aren't abiding by the rules, dumbass.

What rules?

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's also against the law to interfere in a U.S. election. That's what they are doing by suppressing this news.

No they are not. The New York Post has a website and they can push this article. Twitter and Facebook are not obligated to do so. They have broken no laws. You seem to think this is Nazi Germany.

Actually, Twitter and Facebook have far more obligations than you want to believe right now because they're serving your agenda, and you're too piss-stupid to realize that the oppression you cheer today against your enemies can and will be turned against YOU tomorrow. You keep thinking this is about how BAAAAAAAD people are for disagreeing with you, and you're immune because you're "good" according to the masters who create and hand you your thoughts. And then, just like every dumbass in history who gave away his freedoms to march for the "wonderful leader" who turned out to be a dictator, you're shocked when you find out that it was all about HIS power, and you were just the last slave to be clapped in chains.

 

[colfax_m]

It's the exact opposite of freedom of speech, moron.

You obviously don't have a clue as to what Citizens United V. FEC was about.

Citizens United v FEC was about whether the government can prevent private citizens from participating in campaigns.

That's all the executives are doing here. You cannot restrict their freedoms to do so.

 

[colfax_m]

Legally, publishing is the act of distributing or otherwise making public a visual or literary work. Please note that there is nothing in that definition about "contracts".

I agree with you on definition of publisher by and large.

However the law prevents Facebook and Twitter from being considered publishers for content submitted to their website by their users.

 

[Dr Grump]

No article here. I just want to start a discussion on the subject.

Right after Trump is thrown in jail for sedition. Cool

ROFL! Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Yates, Brennan, and Clapper are the ones guilty of sedition. They are guilty of treason.

"October Surprise" Comey? He's guilty of something. On that we can agree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Big yes vote from me!

Got it, you and the author of the OP want to repeal and replace the First Amendment. That will take a long time, it might be better for you and finger boy to apply for citizenship in N. Korea, Iran, China, Saudia Arabia or Russia.

But you might as well stay in the United States, if and only if Donald Trump is elected for four more years, then you won't need to worry, he will by EO incarcerate any media source who insults his excellency.

Only a leftist could think they're "protecting the First Amendment" by defending someone SUPPRESSED the free exchange of information and ideas. "But they have a RIGHT to keep you from talking, because you're saying things I don't want people to hear!"

You continue to be the evil you flatter yourself that you fight.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Big yes vote from me!

Got it, you and the author of the OP want to repeal and replace the First Amendment. That will take a long time, it might be better for you and finger boy to apply for citizenship in N. Korea, Iran, China, Saudia Arabia or Russia.

But you might as well stay in the United States, if and only if Donald Trump is elected for four more years, then you won't need to worry, he will by EO incarcerate any media source who insults his excellency.

Recent events have made it clear that we can't allow Tech monopolies to censor our information. They are done for if Trump gets reelected. That's the bottom line. If he doesn't get reelected, then our freedoms are done for.

At the very least, when we're all being marched to the gulags, we'll be able to see the look of shock, outrage, and despair on the faces of all these useful idiots and willing pawns as they are herded in right along with everyone else by the evil they believed to be the "shining light of freedom". Not much comfort, but I spend the odd moment or two enjoying the picture.

 

[bripat9643]

They aren't abiding by the rules, dumbass.

What rules?

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's also against the law to interfere in a U.S. election. That's what they are doing by suppressing this news.

No they are not. The New York Post has a website and they can push this article. Twitter and Facebook are not obligated to do so. They have broken no laws. You seem to think this is Nazi Germany.

Actually, Twitter and Facebook have far more obligations than you want to believe right now because they're serving your agenda, and you're too piss-stupid to realize that the oppression you cheer today against your enemies can and will be turned against YOU tomorrow. You keep thinking this is about how BAAAAAAAD people are for disagreeing with you, and you're immune because you're "good" according to the masters who create and hand you your thoughts. And then, just like every dumbass in history who gave away his freedoms to march for the "wonderful leader" who turned out to be a dictator, you're shocked when you find out that it was all about HIS power, and you were just the last slave to be clapped in chains.

The first people to go to the Gulag after the Bolsheviks took over were the Mensheviks who were also communists.

 

[Dr Grump]

Big yes vote from me!

Got it, you and the author of the OP want to repeal and replace the First Amendment. That will take a long time, it might be better for you and finger boy to apply for citizenship in N. Korea, Iran, China, Saudia Arabia or Russia.

But you might as well stay in the United States, if and only if Donald Trump is elected for four more years, then you won't need to worry, he will by EO incarcerate any media source who insults his excellency.

Only a leftist could think they're "protecting the First Amendment" by defending someone SUPPRESSED the free exchange of information and ideas. "But they have a RIGHT to keep you from talking, because you're saying things I don't want people to hear!"

You continue to be the evil you flatter yourself that you fight.

Twitter is a private enterprise. Go start your own social media platform

 

[bripat9643]

No article here. I just want to start a discussion on the subject.

Right after Trump is thrown in jail for sedition. Cool

ROFL! Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Yates, Brennan, and Clapper are the ones guilty of sedition. They are guilty of treason.

"October Surprise" Comey? He's guilty of something. On that we can agree.

Trump is only guilty of being a Republican. You're guilty of being a moron and a douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

Big yes vote from me!

Got it, you and the author of the OP want to repeal and replace the First Amendment. That will take a long time, it might be better for you and finger boy to apply for citizenship in N. Korea, Iran, China, Saudia Arabia or Russia.

But you might as well stay in the United States, if and only if Donald Trump is elected for four more years, then you won't need to worry, he will by EO incarcerate any media source who insults his excellency.

Only a leftist could think they're "protecting the First Amendment" by defending someone SUPPRESSED the free exchange of information and ideas. "But they have a RIGHT to keep you from talking, because you're saying things I don't want people to hear!"

You continue to be the evil you flatter yourself that you fight.

Twitter is a private enterprise. Go start your own social media platform

they are a government protected monopoly. As such, they give up certain rights.

 

[bripat9643]

Legally, publishing is the act of distributing or otherwise making public a visual or literary work. Please note that there is nothing in that definition about "contracts".

I agree with you on definition of publisher by and large.

However the law prevents Facebook and Twitter from being considered publishers for content submitted to their website by their users.

Only if they act as a common carrier, and they aren't doing that when they censor based purely on their own whims.

How many times does this fact have to be explained to you morons?

 

[bripat9643]

It's the exact opposite of freedom of speech, moron.

You obviously don't have a clue as to what Citizens United V. FEC was about.

Citizens United v FEC was about whether the government can prevent private citizens from participating in campaigns.

That's all the executives are doing here. You cannot restrict their freedoms to do so.

No it wasn't moron. It was about whether the government can stop you from publishing information about a candidate during a political campaign. FEC wanted to prevent a book about Hillar from being published. The SC said they couldn't do that. What we have here is the exact opposite of that.

 

[bripat9643]

Legally, publishing is the act of distributing or otherwise making public a visual or literary work. Please note that there is nothing in that definition about "contracts".

I agree with you on definition of publisher by and large.

However the law prevents Facebook and Twitter from being considered publishers for content submitted to their website by their users.

NO it doesn't. It says if they want to be protected from lawsuits, then they have to act as a common carrier. They can't censor based purely on their whims.

 

[colfax_m]

NO it doesn't. It says if they want to be protected from lawsuits, then they have to act as a common carrier. They can't censor based purely on their whims.

You have no idea what you're talking about because common carrier is a term that does not apply to social media platforms. A common carrier applies to telecommunications providers like phone companies. It does not apply to content providers.

 

[colfax_m]

No it wasn't moron. It was about whether the government can stop you from publishing information about a candidate during a political campaign. FEC wanted to prevent a book about Hillar from being published. The SC said they couldn't do that. What we have here is the exact opposite of that.

Since that content is considered free speech, it cannot be considered a campaign contribution which would be legally limited. Therefore, your entire premise is mistaken.

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't moron. It was about whether the government can stop you from publishing information about a candidate during a political campaign. FEC wanted to prevent a book about Hillar from being published. The SC said they couldn't do that. What we have here is the exact opposite of that.

Since that content is considered free speech, it cannot be considered a campaign contribution which would be legally limited. Therefore, your entire premise is mistaken.

Twitter censored the content, dumbass. That's the contribution worth $100 million.