Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jerryskids

We now have state-controlled media messaging

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Sorry, I believe the facts, not assumptions. The above is an assumption. The fact that you are incapable of seeing that you’re making a leap of logic from what happened to what you CLAIM is happening behind the scenes… is mind boggling. 

Blah blah blah.  When someone wears nazi gear, you would immediately make assumptions and ignore any facts.  But Jen Psaki wears a hat with the communist hammer and sickle and its OK to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

Blah blah blah.  When someone wears nazi gear, you would immediately make assumptions and ignore any facts.  But Jen Psaki wears a hat with the communist hammer and sickle and its OK to you.

He’s gotta be trolling at this point.

@dogcows in a jury:

Foreman:  Well, looks like an open and shut case.

DC:  Yep.  She’s innocent.

Foreman:  Innocent?!  She confessed to putting poison in his food.  She bought a big insurance policy the week before.  She is having an affair with the pool boy.

DC:  Sure, but did she KNOW he was going to eat the food?  Maybe he planned to put it on the floor for rats to eat but forgot and ate it himself.  And she didn’t explicitly tell him to eat it, did she?  I deal in facts, not assumptions.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newbie trolling?  Naw, couldn't be!!!!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Strike said:

Newbie trolling?  Naw, couldn't be!!!!

 

That would be like calling mdc and worms trolls. :shocking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

It is a bad deal.

I would love to see the vaccine misinformation dealt with, but having the government dictate to private companies what is allowed is a slipperly slope that all US citizens should fight against.

Any democrat that supports this should remember that the balance of power will shift, there will be a time in the next decade that the republicans have both the president and the congress. It is in their best interest to condemn this action even if it is for a good cause.

 

This is exactly what happened with the executive actions, obama started it and then Trump carried it even further and pissed the dems off.

Agreed.

Though the executive action thing was a little while in the making. I think it was W that really super charged them. Remember all that crap about “signing statements” etc?

Anyway, your point is sound. And it’s not just politics. The First Amendment defines who we are as a nation. Undermine that and there’s nothing left :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't about vaccines and misinformation.  This is about top down, authoritative control of all information.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Agreed.

Though the executive action thing was a little while in the making. I think it was W that really super charged them. Remember all that crap about “signing statements” etc?

Anyway, your point is sound. And it’s not just politics. The First Amendment defines who we are as a nation. Undermine that and there’s nothing left :( 

The focus of this particular 1st amendment argument is censorship. That’s missing half the story. Equally important is the 1st amendment’s protection from being forced by the government to post content.

When Biden started to push Facebook by saying they are “killing people", they pushed back and clearly didn’t take down what Biden wanted them to - which the 1st amendment allows them to do.

When Trump pushed Facebook to stop taking down stuff, they also pushed back because it’s also their right to NOT publish things on their site.

Both are protected by the first amendment. That’s why neither Biden nor Trump got what they wanted in these fights.

Beyond that, the other part of this argument seems to be one of style. When Trump disagreed with stuff posted (or removed from) social media, he was public and confrontational. Biden’s administration was quietly requesting changes instead. Some seem to think this is nefarious... but if it was really a secret operation of some sort, why did the press secretary know about it and talk about it publicly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

Blah blah blah.  When someone wears nazi gear, you would immediately make assumptions and ignore any facts.  But Jen Psaki wears a hat with the communist hammer and sickle and its OK to you.

You managed to work both Nazis and communists into a post this short? You win the internet for the day, my friend... :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2021 at 12:50 PM, jerryskids said:

Now you conflate “left up” with “taken down”?  And use Trump’s attempt to reduce censorship as equivalent to Biden’s censorship?  Were you drunk when you typed this?

You're focused only on censorship, while the 1st amendment protects both ways. The government cannot tell a newspaper or website “you must post this” anymore than it can tell them “you must not post this."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dogcows said:

You're focused only on censorship, while the 1st amendment protects both ways. The government cannot tell a newspaper or website “you must post this” anymore than it can tell them “you must not post this."

 

I see your whataboutism but I’m not convinced that the two are the same in this case, because FB is so large of a platform (not publisher) to be excluding the messages of the (then) POTUS from.  But that is a different topic; for now I’ll concede that Trump was almost as bad as Biden is now.  Thanks for finally acknowledging that Biden is in the wrong :cheers: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I see your whataboutism but I’m not convinced that the two are the same in this case, because FB is so large of a platform (not publisher) to be excluding the messages of the (then) POTUS from.  But that is a different topic; for now I’ll concede that Trump was almost as bad as Biden is now.  Thanks for finally acknowledging that Biden is in the wrong :cheers: .

Our 1st amendment held up well in both cases. The President was not able to dictate what Facebook published (or didn’t publish) in either situation. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m less bugged by the WH making FB aware of content that it believes violates FB’s policies than FB having an inconsistent nonsensical policy in the first place. FB and several other platforms should probably lose their Section 230 protections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MDC said:

I’m less bugged by the WH making FB aware of content that it believes violates FB’s policies than FB having an inconsistent nonsensical policy in the first place. FB and several other platforms should probably lose their Section 230 protections. 

They are in a highly privileged position. They are getting the 1st-amendment protection of a newspaper (post whatever they want), but none of the liability. If a newspaper slanders somebody, they can be sued for it. Facebook can allow their members to defame others, and can’t be held responsible for it because of section 230.

A repeal of section 230 seems like it would be disastrous. If a random dude says something defamatory about somebody else, Facebook could then be sued? You’d see millions of lawsuits. There should be some middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

They are in a highly privileged position. They are getting the 1st-amendment protection of a newspaper (post whatever they want), but none of the liability. If a newspaper slanders somebody, they can be sued for it. Facebook can allow their members to defame others, and can’t be held responsible for it because of section 230.

A repeal of section 230 seems like it would be disastrous. If a random dude says something defamatory about somebody else, Facebook could then be sued? You’d see millions of lawsuits. There should be some middle ground.

I think a better analogy would be a newsletter that was entirely made up of letters to the editor. Why should there be liability there? You’re providing the forum, yes, but that’s like holding the construction company liable for pouring the town square :wacko:

And as a matter of practicality, it would be absolutely impossible to ensure that everything posted wasn’t libel and didn’t break any other laws. Could you imagine if MikeFFToday had to guarantee that everything posted here was kosher? He’d put those mice down faster than you could say Comet Pizza :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe any American would want to censor any information. I just don’t understand it.

 

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Ronald Reagan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I think a better analogy would be a newsletter that was entirely made up of letters to the editor. Why should there be liability there? You’re providing the forum, yes, but that’s like holding the construction company liable for pouring the town square :wacko:

And as a matter of practicality, it would be absolutely impossible to ensure that everything posted wasn’t libel and didn’t break any other laws. Could you imagine if MikeFFToday had to guarantee that everything posted here was kosher? He’d put those mice down faster than you could say Comet Pizza :lol:

Good points… just not sure that the status quo is working. Facebook is exercising a lot more “editorial control” than they claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Our 1st amendment held up well in both cases. The President was not able to dictate what Facebook published (or didn’t publish) in either situation. :cheers:

What exactly has been held up regarding Biden? They are just starting to tell FB which posts to take down.  Has this been challenged in court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What exactly has been held up regarding Biden? They are just starting to tell FB which posts to take down.  Has this been challenged in court?

Biden is already walking back his accusations of Facebook “killing people” after they pushed back publicly. Now he is saying it is his “hope” that Facebook can do something about the people on the platform spreading dangerous info.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-facebook-killing-people-misinformation-2653854247

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogcows said:

They are in a highly privileged position. They are getting the 1st-amendment protection of a newspaper (post whatever they want), but none of the liability. If a newspaper slanders somebody, they can be sued for it. Facebook can allow their members to defame others, and can’t be held responsible for it because of section 230.

A repeal of section 230 seems like it would be disastrous. If a random dude says something defamatory about somebody else, Facebook could then be sued? You’d see millions of lawsuits. There should be some middle ground.

The middle ground would be FB no longer selectively applying their terms of service depending on what is posted.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MDC said:

The middle ground would be FB no longer selectively applying their terms of service depending on what is posted.

And they change their terms of service whenever they feel like it. They could be required to have a separate body with full authority to handle such issues, regardless of what Zuckerberg wants.

Facebook is basically a criminal enterprise to begin with, so I’d say just shut the whole thing down… nobody will miss that trash anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about getting off of Facebook? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

How about getting off of Facebook? 

I think everybody should. I don’t have an account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dogcows said:

You're focused only on censorship, while the 1st amendment protects both ways. The government cannot tell a newspaper or website “you must post this” anymore than it can tell them “you must not post this."

 

This is very wrong.  In todays world, if someone tells me the constitution prevents me from doing something, i threaten to pack the supreme court until i get the ruling i want.  Its a star chamber.

 

all of our constitutional rights are getting destroyed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dogcows said:

You're focused only on censorship, while the 1st amendment protects both ways. The government cannot tell a newspaper or website “you must post this” anymore than it can tell them “you must not post this."

 

Isn't that what's happening tho? 

Who told FB to remove Trump's page?  Who is telling FB to push the Covid info and "fact checking?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

Isn't that what's happening tho? 

Who told FB to remove Trump's page?  Who is telling FB to push the Covid info and "fact checking?" 

1. Here’s what a Facebook VP had to say about that: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/facebook-vp-explains-decision-to-ban-trump-for-2-years-severe-penalty-is-justified/ar-AAKLlYn

2. Here is Facebook’s page about COVID: https://about.facebook.com/actions/responding-to-covid-19

If one believes it is “the government” making Facebook block somebody, how do you explain them banning a sitting President from the platform?  That is the exact opposite of government censorship - it’s a company going against the express wishes of the POTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dogcows said:

 

If one believes it is “the government” making Facebook block somebody, how do you explain them banning a sitting President from the platform?  That is the exact opposite of government censorship - it’s a company going against the express wishes of the POTUS.

Pure idiocy.  You're acting like big tech didn't "fortify" the election for Biden.  You're acting like Zuckerberg didn't dump millions into the Georgia Senate race. You're acting like you don't know that most forms of media are acting as the propaganda arm of the DNC.  Hell, even the ACLU how bowed to leftism. Using the term "the government" is a huge goal post move.  You know we"re taking about Dems having major influence over big tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fireballer said:

Pure idiocy.  You're acting like big tech didn't "fortify" the election for Biden.  You're acting like Zuckerberg didn't dump millions into the Georgia Senate race. You're acting like you don't know that most forms of media are acting as the propaganda arm of the DNC.  Hell, even the ACLU how bowed to leftism. Using the term "the government" is a huge goal post move.  You know we"re taking about Dems having major influence over big tech.

We were talking about the first amendment.

Goalpost move? In America, it is only the government that is forbidden from censoring. Any newspaper, website, whatever… is allowed to publish or NOT publish whatever the F they want. If you don’t like it, start your own website/newspaper/whatever. That’s how it works.

Lots of companies support political campaigns on both sides. News outlets have always had a certain level of bias. There is nothing illegal about it.

But the notion that Facebook is somehow unfair to conservatives is one of the biggest lies out there. As I posted earlier in the thread, the top 10 shared posts on FB are almost always from conservative sources. If you want to claim banning anti-vaccine lies = banning conservatives… think about what you’re saying about conservatives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogcows said:

We were talking about the first amendment.

Goalpost move? In America, it is only the government that is forbidden from censoring. Any newspaper, website, whatever… is allowed to publish or NOT publish whatever the F they want. If you don’t like it, start your own website/newspaper/whatever. That’s how it works.

Lots of companies support political campaigns on both sides. News outlets have always had a certain level of bias. There is nothing illegal about it.

But the notion that Facebook is somehow unfair to conservatives is one of the biggest lies out there. As I posted earlier in the thread, the top 10 shared posts on FB are almost always from conservative sources. If you want to claim banning anti-vaccine lies = banning conservatives… think about what you’re saying about conservatives.

 

And the 330 million that Zuckerberg spent on the election? No concern to you that he paid for and collected from the drop boxes that were for mail in votes? A private entity in the chain of custody of votes? No issue there? Not for you. He’s on your side. You like being ruled by oligarchs I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

And the 330 million that Zuckerberg spent on the election? No concern to you that he paid for and collected from the drop boxes that were for mail in votes? A private entity in the chain of custody of votes? No issue there? Not for you. He’s on your side. You like being ruled by oligarchs I guess. 

You believe in some wild fantasies…

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dogcows said:

You believe in some wild fantasies…

Let’s hear what’s a fantasy that I said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Dog cows won’t be around these parts for a while now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Let’s hear what’s a fantasy that I said. 

it was a fantasy, you said 330

it was 350, he got you liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogcows said:

 

You are very bad at reading if you believe this article says that Zuckerberg collected votes from drop boxes. 

all I did was post that Zucker the Nazi did indead contribute 350 million, and I am sure he just did it out of the kindness of his heart right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

all I did was post that Zucker the Nazi did indead contribute 350 million, and I am sure he just did it out of the kindness of his heart right?

 

My reply was to hardcore… and he posted wild fantasies about Zuckerberg collecting votes from drop boxes. Somebody donating to an organization that then gives grants to regions that are short on money for running their elections… is not doing anything wrong, and there’s nothing nefarious about it. You’ve gotta turn off the far-right radio. They make these insane connections through massive leaps of logic - it’s pure conspiracy theory. Or maybe you’re mad that poor people could vote without waiting in line for 6 hours due to charities like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dogcows said:

My reply was to hardcore… and he posted wild fantasies about Zuckerberg collecting votes from drop boxes. Somebody donating to an organization that then gives grants to regions that are short on money for running their elections… is not doing anything wrong, and there’s nothing nefarious about it. You’ve gotta turn off the far-right radio. They make these insane connections through massive leaps of logic - it’s pure conspiracy theory. Or maybe you’re mad that poor people could vote without waiting in line for 6 hours due to charities like this?

you mean like you do with Trump calling for an insurrection? Or parroting good people on both sides, or thinking BLM is a stand up cause

I dont listen to the radio, I watch about 3 people

Tim Pool

Joe Rogan

Russell Brand

I watch all 3 of them everything they produce

I also watch Steven Crowder, occasionally Ben Shapiro, and from the Socialist side I watch some of the guy who's name is slipping me but while being a socialist he isnt a TDS idiot

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

you mean like you do with Trump calling for an insurrection? Or parroting good people on both sides, or thinking BLM is a stand up cause

I dont listen to the radio, I watch about 3 people

Tim Pool

Joe Rogan

Russell Brand

I watch all 3 of them everything they produce

I also watch Steven Crowder, occasionally Ben Shapiro, and from the Socialist side I watch some of the guy who's name is slipping me but while being a socialist he isnt a TDS idiot

 

If you quit now, you might be able to recover without the need for brain surgery 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

If you quit now, you might be able to recover without the need for brain surgery 😜

Way too late for you. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

you mean like you do with Trump calling for an insurrection? Or parroting good people on both sides, or thinking BLM is a stand up cause

I dont listen to the radio, I watch about 3 people

Tim Pool

Joe Rogan

Russell Brand

I watch all 3 of them everything they produce

I also watch Steven Crowder, occasionally Ben Shapiro, and from the Socialist side I watch some of the guy who's name is slipping me but while being a socialist he isnt a TDS idiot

 

Jimmy Dore? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×