Jump to content

Censorship seems to be alive and well under Biden/Harris


Chwooly

Recommended Posts

"Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure," Zuckerberg wrote. 

 

 

'Nuff said.

 

Pressure, or the suggestion that some comments could harm the public, differs from censorship.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often times its the left, dems , progressives that have  stymied political opponents!imop

 

Simple meaning of censorship !
 

“Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen.  To "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable”.

 

The government & agencies took turns playing word games with social media

while hiding behind 3 rd party  platforms.

 

“What do all these groups, though, have in common, and I am going to again refresh your memory. They were all communicating on a private cloud server known as Jira. Now, the screenshot behind me, which is an example of one of thousands, shows on November 3, 2020, that you, Mr. Roth, a Twitter employee, were exchanging communications on Jira, a private cloud server with CISA, NASS, NASED, and Alex Stamos, who now works at Stanford and is a former security officer at Facebook, to remove a posting. Do you now remember communicating on a private cloud server to remove a posting”?

 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118hhrg50898/html/CHRG-118hhrg50898.htm

 

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship#:~:text=Censorship blocks something from being,it that are considered unacceptable.

Edited by riclag
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GovSpeak is insidious.  I get sick of hearing how the government will "ask" people to pay more in taxes, when they really mean that they will force people to pay more taxes at the point of a gun and threat of imprisonment if necessary.

 

This is the same.  

Quote

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

You may have convinced yourself but there is 50% +/- of the electorate who you have not yet convinced.

Ah yes, those deplorables.

They don’t make up 50% though. About 30%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roo Island said:

Time for the trolls spewing misinformation and hate to be reigned in. Enough is enough.

 

This is coming from the king of misinformation

 

You are referring to yourself?  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

"Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure," Zuckerberg wrote. 

 

 

'Nuff said.

 

Pressure, or the suggestion that some comments could harm the public, differs from censorship.

 

 

Zuckerberg wrote. 

 

I rilly, rilly believe that man is impartial- not really.

 

I dislike him so much I can't even write his name.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

What misinformation did I post. Other than facts and we know that you like alternative ones that fit your narrative. 😟

All of it. You mimic the media verbatim due to being hopelessly caught up in the media black hole vacuum.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chwooly said:

Not sure if your wording is intentional or not but Trump signed an executive order to try and force the Social Media companies to not censor especially conservative voices. Unlike Biden/Harris which was pressuring them to censor

 

Both weren't pleased with social media content, so both tried to force social media to change their content. 

 

Trump wasn't pleased that Twitter was fact-checking his statements, so he threatened them. He wasn't being prevented from posting on Twitter, at least not at that time.   https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52821304

 

Biden wasn't pleased with Facebook allowing disinformation regarding Covid. Don't know if Biden actually threatened Facebook.

 

It is basically the same thing: government interfering with free speech being exercised by social media platforms.

 

If Biden or Trump wasn't pleased with what social media was saying, the answer isn't to threaten them, but rather to exercise their own free speech rights by refuting their statements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

 

 

It is basically the same thing: government interfering with free speech being exercised by social media platforms.

 

If Biden or Trump wasn't pleased with what social media was saying, the answer isn't to threaten them, but rather to exercise their own free speech rights by refuting their statements. 

 Agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Seems to have been a problem under Trump, too.

 

 

Newly Released Records Show How Trump Tried to Retaliate Against Social Media For Fact-Checking

 

A year ago today, President Trump issued an Executive Order that deputized federal agencies to retaliate against online social media services on his behalf, a disturbing and unconstitutional attack on internet free expression.

 

To mark this ignoble anniversary, EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology are making records from their Freedom of Information Act lawsuit over the Executive Order public. The records show how Trump planned to leverage more than $117 million worth of government online advertising to stop platforms from fact-checking or otherwise moderating his speech.

 

Although the documents released thus far do not disclose whether government officials cut federal advertising as the Executive Order directed, they do show that the agencies’ massive online advertising budgets could easily be manipulated to coerce private platforms into adopting the president or the government’s preferred political views.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/newly-released-records-show-how-trump-tried-retaliate-against-social-media-fact

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/05/dangers-trumps-executive-order-explained

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bamnutsak said:

 

 

Newly Released Records Show How Trump Tried to Retaliate Against Social Media For Fact-Checking

 

A year ago today, President Trump issued an Executive Order that deputized federal agencies to retaliate against online social media services on his behalf, a disturbing and unconstitutional attack on internet free expression.

 

To mark this ignoble anniversary, EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology are making records from their Freedom of Information Act lawsuit over the Executive Order public. The records show how Trump planned to leverage more than $117 million worth of government online advertising to stop platforms from fact-checking or otherwise moderating his speech.

 

Although the documents released thus far do not disclose whether government officials cut federal advertising as the Executive Order directed, they do show that the agencies’ massive online advertising budgets could easily be manipulated to coerce private platforms into adopting the president or the government’s preferred political views.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/newly-released-records-show-how-trump-tried-retaliate-against-social-media-fact

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/05/dangers-trumps-executive-order-explained

 

 

 

Here is the actual text of the executive order. Unlike the vast majority of Trump haters on this forum, I am capable of reading and coming to my own conclusions, Not have it force-fed to my by a clearly biased media. as seen in the above 2 links. 

 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13925-preventing-online-censorship

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2024 at 2:42 AM, riclag said:

 Peel the onions , expose harris/ biden censorship! 

 

 

 

Just like they did re: Biden's impeachment..........what do they call it...oh.....Lawfare.....555

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...
""