Why do liberals support political censorship by Big Tech and the dying media?

[bripat9643]

You are one of the bad actors, moron. The first amendment is what makes the US superior to all those European authoritarian people's republics. I can't imagine anything worse for this country than some douchebag like you having any degree of control over what other people can say.

I'm not the one inciting violence, guy.

That would be your side.

Yeah, right, asshole:

 

[LuckyDuck]

Why censor? Why not engage and discuss?

I am a conservative and I want ZERO censorship. If someone posts something I think is inaccurate, its an opportunity to discuss facts and truth.

The left, including Congress, wants to censor opposing opinions. They said as much this past week when questioning Zuck and Dorsey. Many Dem Senators told these guys they need to CENSOR MORE SPEECH.

This shit is reckless and only goes one way.

CENSORSHIP IS BAD. PERIOD. What are liberals afraid of? DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT? GASP!

Here's the problem. George Soros spreads billions of dollars out there, buying politicians, lawyers and other groups loyalty. The goal of George Soros, is to create a Globalist New World Order, free-movement of peoples project, with Marxism at its base. Many of the world's politicians are on board with this. If all nations fall in line with this ideology, the concept is that it will:
1. End nationalist wars.
2. Adopt a globally accepted currency.
3. End the private ownership of firearms to ensure compliance to the globalist state.
4. Mandate one educational system for the globe, promoting the Marxist ideology.
5. Ensure that all people across the globe, are paid a similar basic low income to survive.
When asked why he is messing with peoples lives, he responded with: "I like f***ing with people.
Soros like Bloomberg, is a sociopath. They do make good head of corporations, but that's about it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As always, without fail, you can count on JoeB131 to take the side of subhuman criminal filth—even childfuckers—against that of actual human beings.

Always.

Again, your church was started by a guy who was ******* 14 year olds... I don't think you have a lot of room to talk.

It is ironic that you keep leveling that solidly-disproven lie, in response to having been caught red-handed openly defending an actual childfucker.

 

[JoeB131]

It is ironic that you keep leveling that solidly-disproven lie, in response to having been caught red-handed openly defending an actual childfucker.

When was it disproven?

The names of Joseph Smith's wives are well known.

Here, let me help you out.

List of Joseph Smith's wives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Wives of Joseph Smith

www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

Fanny Alger - 16 years old.
Flora Ann Woodworth - 16
Helen Mar Kimball - 14
Nancy Mariah Winchester - 14

I didn't even bother to include the 17 year olds...

Now compare that to a young man of 18 who had sex with a younger teenager, and they threw the book at him because they were gay... um.. yeah, it's terrible and it shouldn't happen.

And let's not forget, people in 1843 weren't happy about what Smith was doing either... which is why THIS happened.

 

[Markle]

It is ironic that you keep leveling that solidly-disproven lie, in response to having been caught red-handed openly defending an actual childfucker.

When was it disproven?

The names of Joseph Smith's wives are well known.

Here, let me help you out.

List of Joseph Smith's wives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Wives of Joseph Smith

www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

Fanny Alger - 16 years old.
Flora Ann Woodworth - 16
Helen Mar Kimball - 14
Nancy Mariah Winchester - 14

I didn't even bother to include the 17 year olds...

Now compare that to a young man of 18 who had sex with a younger teenager, and they threw the book at him because they were gay... um.. yeah, it's terrible and it shouldn't happen.

And let's not forget, people in 1843 weren't happy about what Smith was doing either... which is why THIS happened.

View attachment 420368

What does this have to do with the thread's topic?

In case someone forgot: Why do liberals support political censorship by Big Tech and the dying media?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

False premise.

^ Programmed progressive response

"You are a stupid and crazy person. Seek therapy." - Kavik Kang, on the programmed Progressive response

 

[JoeB131]

What does this have to do with the thread's topic?

In case someone forgot: Why do liberals support political censorship by Big Tech and the dying media?

here, let's recap.

You wingnuts were whining that Facebook and Twitter are controlling their content.

I pointed out that they really don't do enough to keep questionable content off, like the Kenosha Militia that organized on Facebook and recruited a 17 year old thug who proceeded to shoot people.

Mormon Bob pointed out that it was okay, because 20 years ago, one of the victims was prosecuted as a teen for having sex with another teen. And this was the worst thing ever, apparently.

I pointed out that he belongs to a cult that was lead by a guy who MARRIED multiple teenage girls as a 35 year old man, and he considers this guy a Prophet.

Are we all caught up now? Good.

So, the question is, should Social media platforms monitor their content, and do they have a right to take down questionable content?

And the answer is, yes. yes, they do and they should.

Heck, even I got dinged once when I inadvertently reposted something about the aforementioned Kenosha Shooter's criminal record. Turns out it wasn't true. It was another guy with the same name. Facebook took it down and warned me about it. That's kind of what they SHOULD do.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

False premise.

Big Tech and the dead media do not censor?

Ugh.....The Hunter Biden story from the New York Post?

You really believe these left wing outlets do not censor?

The ******* Democrats in the Senate just told them to censor more.

It doesn’t matter what anyone ‘believes’ – all that matters is that private media and online hosting sites are at liberty to edit their content as they see fit; where such editing is neither ‘censorship’ nor ‘violating’ free speech.

If rightists don’t like how a given hosting site edits its content, they’re likewise at liberty to not patronize that hosting site.

Or conservatives can create their own hosting site to propagate their message of ignorance, fear, and hate.

That's fine and good. The second these sites edit content, which has already occurred, the are not exempt from libel laws.
You cant have it both ways leftist twit.

 

[JoeB131]

That's fine and good. The second these sites edit content, which has already occurred, the are not exempt from libel laws.
You cant have it both ways leftist twit.

They probably aren't now. Facebook has strict rules

Meta Terms of Service

The Meta Terms govern your use of Facebook, Messenger, and the other products, features, apps, services, technologies, and software we offer.

www.facebook.com

1. You may not use our Products to do or share anything:
   • That violates these Terms, our Community Standards, and other terms and policiesthat apply to your use of Facebook.
     
     
   • That is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent.
     
     
   • That infringes or violates someone else's rights, including their intellectual property rights.
2. 
   
3. You may not upload viruses or malicious code or do anything that could disable, overburden, or impair the proper working or appearance of our Products.
   
   
4. You may not access or collect data from our Products using automated means (without our prior permission) or attempt to access data you do not have permission to access.

We can remove or restrict access to content that is in violation of these provisions.

If we remove content that you have shared in violation of our Community Standards, we’ll let you know and explain any options you have to request another review, unless you seriously or repeatedly violate these Terms or if doing so may expose us or others to legal liability; harm our community of users; compromise or interfere with the integrity or operation of any of our services, systems or Products; where we are restricted due to technical limitations; or where we are prohibited from doing so for legal reasons.

To help support our community, we encourage you to report content or conduct that you believe violates your rights (including intellectual property rights) or our terms and policies.

We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook.

 

[ColonelAngus]

False premise.

Big Tech and the dead media do not censor?

Ugh.....The Hunter Biden story from the New York Post?

You really believe these left wing outlets do not censor?

The ******* Democrats in the Senate just told them to censor more.

It doesn’t matter what anyone ‘believes’ – all that matters is that private media and online hosting sites are at liberty to edit their content as they see fit; where such editing is neither ‘censorship’ nor ‘violating’ free speech.

If rightists don’t like how a given hosting site edits its content, they’re likewise at liberty to not patronize that hosting site.

Or conservatives can create their own hosting site to propagate their message of ignorance, fear, and hate.

That's fine and good. The second these sites edit content, which has already occurred, the are not exempt from libel laws.
You cant have it both ways leftist twit.

Exactly. That poster would not say whether Twitter is a platform or publisher.

 

[jknowgood]

Why censor? Why not engage and discuss?

I am a conservative and I want ZERO censorship. If someone posts something I think is inaccurate, its an opportunity to discuss facts and truth.

Okay, someone posts something on line accusing you of a horrible crime. It's completely untrue, ruins your reputation, and causes you to lose your job and your neighbors to hate you. Eventually, 'the truth" comes out, but the lie is still floating out there on line forever.

Used to be you could hold someone in the media accountable through a libel lawsuit. But that's before every loser inthe world living in his mother's basement became an "internet journalist".

Like Russian collusion?

 

[bripat9643]

It is ironic that you keep leveling that solidly-disproven lie, in response to having been caught red-handed openly defending an actual childfucker.

When was it disproven?

The names of Joseph Smith's wives are well known.

Here, let me help you out.

List of Joseph Smith's wives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Wives of Joseph Smith

www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

Fanny Alger - 16 years old.
Flora Ann Woodworth - 16
Helen Mar Kimball - 14
Nancy Mariah Winchester - 14

I didn't even bother to include the 17 year olds...

Now compare that to a young man of 18 who had sex with a younger teenager, and they threw the book at him because they were gay... um.. yeah, it's terrible and it shouldn't happen.

And let's not forget, people in 1843 weren't happy about what Smith was doing either... which is why THIS happened.

View attachment 420368

What does this have to do with the thread's topic?

In case someone forgot: Why do liberals support political censorship by Big Tech and the dying media?

They are Stalinists, at root.

 

[bripat9643]

It is ironic that you keep leveling that solidly-disproven lie, in response to having been caught red-handed openly defending an actual childfucker.

When was it disproven?

The names of Joseph Smith's wives are well known.

Here, let me help you out.

List of Joseph Smith's wives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Wives of Joseph Smith

www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

Fanny Alger - 16 years old.
Flora Ann Woodworth - 16
Helen Mar Kimball - 14
Nancy Mariah Winchester - 14

I didn't even bother to include the 17 year olds...

Now compare that to a young man of 18 who had sex with a younger teenager, and they threw the book at him because they were gay... um.. yeah, it's terrible and it shouldn't happen.

And let's not forget, people in 1843 weren't happy about what Smith was doing either... which is why THIS happened.

View attachment 420368

13 was the legal age in those days, moron. Your accusation is worthless.

 

[bripat9643]

That's fine and good. The second these sites edit content, which has already occurred, the are not exempt from libel laws.
You cant have it both ways leftist twit.

They probably aren't now. Facebook has strict rules

Meta Terms of Service

The Meta Terms govern your use of Facebook, Messenger, and the other products, features, apps, services, technologies, and software we offer.

www.facebook.com

1. You may not use our Products to do or share anything:
   • That violates these Terms, our Community Standards, and other terms and policiesthat apply to your use of Facebook.
     
     
   • That is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent.
     
     
   • That infringes or violates someone else's rights, including their intellectual property rights.
2. 
   
3. You may not upload viruses or malicious code or do anything that could disable, overburden, or impair the proper working or appearance of our Products.
   
   
4. You may not access or collect data from our Products using automated means (without our prior permission) or attempt to access data you do not have permission to access.

We can remove or restrict access to content that is in violation of these provisions.

If we remove content that you have shared in violation of our Community Standards, we’ll let you know and explain any options you have to request another review, unless you seriously or repeatedly violate these Terms or if doing so may expose us or others to legal liability; harm our community of users; compromise or interfere with the integrity or operation of any of our services, systems or Products; where we are restricted due to technical limitations; or where we are prohibited from doing so for legal reasons.

To help support our community, we encourage you to report content or conduct that you believe violates your rights (including intellectual property rights) or our terms and policies.

We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook.

They haven't banned you yet, Joe, and everything you post is misleading, discriminatory and fraudulent.

 

[BlindBoo]

When the country first got nationwide radio networks there was concern that a single entity could broadcast from a single political perspective. That's when we got our first "Fairness Doctrines" that demanded the networks provide access for political rebuttal on certain topics. That carried over to TV when we had only three networks. However, when cable took off, the doctrine was no longer necessary due to the eclectic nature of cable news that provided for a substantial variation of political thought. With the advent of the internet and streaming services this variety has only increased.

That's why I support continued freedom of the press to choose what they broadcast.

 

[Juicin]

Why censor? Why not engage and discuss?

I am a conservative and I want ZERO censorship. If someone posts something I think is inaccurate, its an opportunity to discuss facts and truth.

The left, including Congress, wants to censor opposing opinions. They said as much this past week when questioning Zuck and Dorsey. Many Dem Senators told these guys they need to CENSOR MORE SPEECH.

This shit is reckless and only goes one way.

CENSORSHIP IS BAD. PERIOD. What are liberals afraid of? DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT? GASP!

Because the republican alternative of changing/ending 230 protections is unthinkable

They have a choice between democrats who basically want the status quo + millenial moderation, they threaten changes to the business model without them.

Or they can choose republicans whose only intellectually consistent response in 2020 is to change the laws surrounding their business or stop moderation all together.

They can't please both sides, so they picked a side

 

[bripat9643]

When the country first got nationwide radio networks there was concern that a single entity could broadcast from a single political perspective. That's when we got our first "Fairness Doctrines" that demanded the networks provide access for political rebuttal on certain topics. That carried over to TV when we had only three networks. However, when cable took off, the doctrine was no longer necessary due to the eclectic nature of cable news that provided for a substantial variation of political thought. With the advent of the internet and streaming services this variety has only increased.

That's why I support continued freedom of the press to choose what they broadcast.

Then remove rule 230, which interferes with freedom of the press.

 

[JoeB131]

13 was the legal age in those days, moron. Your accusation is worthless.

I don't have a moral view on it one way or the other... But Mormon Bob does... that's my point.

Of course, people at the time weren't thrilled with what Smith was doing, that's why they shot him.

 

[bripat9643]

13 was the legal age in those days, moron. Your accusation is worthless.

I don't have a moral view on it one way or the other... But Mormon Bob does... that's my point.

Of course, people at the time weren't thrilled with what Smith was doing, that's why they shot him.

Of course you have a moral view on it. You called him a pedophile.

Before the war Germans weren't thrilled with Jews who earned more money than they did. I guess that means, according to you, that they were justified in putting them in gas ovens.

 

[BluesLegend]

Why do liberals support political censorship by Big Tech

Liberals have never tolerated any view other than the liberal view. Plus they are assholes.