Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I heard they found email between the White House and Zuckerberg.Of course it is. Do you have any proof that this happened? Have any companies complained that they were bullied by the government?
www.theepochtimes.com
Government has every right to ask social media companies to be careful of what they allow on their platforms. There are still no problems.
One of the great misunderstandings about the first amendment is that It does not grant you any specific rights nor does it apply to anyone other than congress. The writers of the constitution considered speech to a natural right. That means you take responsibility for your words. It does not protect malicious or dangerous speech from government push back nor does it apply at all to social media companies.
i miss where anyone said it was a right.Yes it does NAZI. Tell me what section of the Constitution makes tax exempt status a right.
Tax money doesn't pay for Al Qaeda propaganda.
It's telling them to ban republicans, moron. That's a big problem.Government has every right to ask social media companies to be careful of what they allow on their platforms. There are still no problems.
I don't know about that, but I rewatched the Zuckerberg interview. He didn't say they asked him to specifically silence the Hunter Biden story - but it's what everyone was expecting at the time. It seems pretty obvious what they were worried about and that they wanted it censored.I heard they found email between the White House and Zuckerberg.
Many of Fauci’s Emails With Zuckerberg Should Be Shielded, Government Says
Yes, I think he has a crush on you. He wants to give you pearls!Aw, what a nice thing for you to say.
I'd tell it to shove its pearls up its ass, but it would undoubtedly enjoy it.Yes, I think he has a crush on you. He wants to give you pearls!
This is (yet another) example of blind partisan hypocrisy. Can any of the Dems here honestly say they wouldn't be howling for blood if the Trump administration had been caught doing something similar?This would be a good case for SCOTUS: is it a violation of the intended spirit of the law when the ruling party, not able to suppress the free speech of opposing political views or stories that would be harmful to the ruling party, directs private companies to do so on its behalf?
Their hypocrisy shows itself at every turn, and they are too arrogant to see it.This is (yet another) example of blind partisan hypocrisy. Can any of the Dems here honestly say they wouldn't be howling for blood if the Trump administration had been caught doing something similar?
The partisan refrain: "It's different when we do it!"Their hypocrisy shows itself at every turn, and they are too arrogant to see it.
But not at the behest of the government. Do that, and the social media companies are in violation of the COTUS, and their 230 status.
DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Not if they want 230 protection, numskull.
The company should also be prevented from arbitrary censorship since the internet is run by the feds and under FCC fairness rules, and the 14th amendment means individual rights can also be protected from abuse by companies.
Limiting speech is never in anyone's best interest, you fucking NAZI.
Government officials do it on the taxpayer dime. That isn't one of their official duties, so it's against the law.
It has no such right, douchebag.
Where does it state that exactly?
