Jump to content
Aaron_Hacker

***Official Lord Emperor Donald J Trump 4th Year and Re-election Thread***

Recommended Posts

You even mentioned "if they would submit a TOS that the govt approved, etc etc"...THAT would be regulated by the govt. As far as i know the govt has no say in what they do at the moment. How exactly are they regulated?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, treypear said:

 

This is a lot longer than 4 minutes, but it's worth the watch. The beginning talks about big tech censorship and validates your post.

 

I implore every rational person on this forum to watch the beginning of this clip and entertain the idea that free speech protections are eroding and then decide if that's a good thing. 

 

Yeah I messed up trimming youtube clip... for some reason it would let me start it at the right mark (57:40) but didn't end it at the 61:40 mark.

 

3 hours ago, marinersheep said:

 

I can't watch it at the moment, but my argument by no means is in favor of free speech protections.

 

Companies like Facebook and Twitter are free services that people are welcome to use or not use. They can allow or not allow whatever they want IMO, as long as no laws are being broken (basically if you can say it out on the street and not get in trouble for it, then you should be able to say it on their platforms). 

 

I just reject the idea that any censorship that happens is a result of Democratic operatives infiltrating a company.

 


How do you reject the idea so quickly? Do you have a background in the censorship that social media companies are using? Or just assuming it's partisan BS?

Edited by XBassX
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aaron_Hacker said:


What you’re failing to take into consideration is that these companies are regulated as public utilities.  When they choose to interpret their own terms of service in a laughable manner, such as censoring the NY Post under their hacked content TOS even though none of the material the NY Post posted was ever hacked, or censoring the official government DHS Twitter account for posting illegal border crossing and border wall progress statistics as “hate speech” (LOL) they are no longer behaving as a public utility, they are behaving as a publisher.  
 

If they were to be regulated as a publisher rather than a public utility, they would be legally liable for everything posted to their platform from millions of users.  
 

Currently, they are enjoying the legal protections of being a public utility while behaving as a publisher.  They want to have their cake and eat it, too.  The reckoning day for these companies is coming either through stripping their section 230 protections (from the right) or anti-trust suits (from the left).  It’s only a matter of time and long overdue.  

 

They aren't be regulated as public utilities and 230 shouldn't be applied to them and that's the reason those companies have no business censoring any speech at all. The 230 and anti-trust regulation threats are what Washington is using to control these companies. At the moment it's democrats threatening anti-trust if they don't walk the party line, and now republicans are threatening 230 to counter that.

 

So that's the point of the Greenwald clip. It's easier, or more preferred, for the social media companies to do what left leaders want instead of facing anti-trust lawsuits and future regulation.

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

 

 

 

Yeah I messed up trimming youtube clip... for some reason it would let me start it at the right mark (57:40) but didn't end it at the 61:40 mark.


How do you reject the idea so quickly? Do you have a background in the censorship that social media companies are using? Or just assuming it's partisan BS?

 

I reject the notion that there are people working for the Democratic Party that got jobs with those companies and worked their way into a position to do the dirty work of the Democratic Party from within. That seems absurd.

 

Your next post isn't something I reject at all, having very little knowledge of the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Camzeeee said:

lol hacker, why do you keep saying the govt regulates these guys like a public utility? Link?

 

Representative Steve King floated the idea of regulating Facebook, Twitter etc as utilities during hearings but that idea was never adopted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, raisethis2 said:

 

Representative Steve King floated the idea of regulating Facebook, Twitter etc as utilities during hearings but that idea was never adopted. 

 

Liz Warren and Bernie are to this day saying it

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you should really watch it. The guest is the journalist who broke the Snowden story regarding NSA spying. He reports Andy Stone is the director of communications at facebook who managed pr on the post censorship.  He calls andy stone a Democrat operative from his prior work at the dnc and for various Democrat politicians.  

 

You should watch the clip because the reporter is well informed, eloquent, and can speak to this much better than anyone on this forum, or even Joe Rogan.  

 

I don't think operatives infiltrated facebook and Twitter, ike some nefarious conspiracy plot. imo, it's more likely they are hired to help navigate the political waters. Imo, it would be similar to the way banks hire people from the FDIC to work in the compliance department.  The political leanings of tech companies just happen to lean majority to the left. Otherwise RNC operatives would be hired and this would be an issue for most on hear who chose to ignore it. 

 

It just so happens the left is also the party pushing for de-platforming and demonetizing those who don't comply with the current woke environment.  They claim the moral high ground and ends justify the means. This reporter and Joe Rogan are both left. They just believe in free speech and use the old ACLU as an example of defending the opinion of those you don't agree with, even if it is vehemently offensive. Such as the nazi parade in 1978 through a town in Iowa with actual holocaust survivors.  Can you imagine the inner turmoil of Jewish lawyers arguing on behalf of Nazis? They believed the freedom of speech being a fundamental necessity to fighting oppression, is more important than muh feels or orange man bad. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been able to watch the clip (probably won't watch the clip tbh, mostly because I don't care enough), but what you're saying sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's just that when I hear "infiltrated by Democratic operatives", that does sound like a conspiracy. Probably just a bad choice of words that I would be able to ignore if I did watch the clip would be my guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it, it's probably healthy to give less of shit right now.

 

Greenwald used the term operative, that wasn't alibiing on my part. I did say 'Pundit' probably was a better word for the example but I was doubting at the time if he actually used the term or not. He named who this person worked for in washington, a dem congress women, but failed to name whom it actually was that is sitting at a high position at FB. But that person, according to Greenwald, was the exact person who made the decision at FB to go along with twitter to censor the NY Post.

 

Take it for whatever you want.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, treypear said:

So you should really watch it. The guest is the journalist who broke the Snowden story regarding NSA spying. He reports Andy Stone is the director of communications at facebook who managed pr on the post censorship.  He calls andy stone a Democrat operative from his prior work at the dnc and for various Democrat politicians.  

 

You should watch the clip because the reporter is well informed, eloquent, and can speak to this much better than anyone on this forum, or even Joe Rogan.  

 

I don't think operatives infiltrated facebook and Twitter, ike some nefarious conspiracy plot. imo, it's more likely they are hired to help navigate the political waters. Imo, it would be similar to the way banks hire people from the FDIC to work in the compliance department.  The political leanings of tech companies just happen to lean majority to the left. Otherwise RNC operatives would be hired and this would be an issue for most on hear who chose to ignore it. 

 

It just so happens the left is also the party pushing for de-platforming and demonetizing those who don't comply with the current woke environment.  They claim the moral high ground and ends justify the means. This reporter and Joe Rogan are both left. They just believe in free speech and use the old ACLU as an example of defending the opinion of those you don't agree with, even if it is vehemently offensive. Such as the nazi parade in 1978 through a town in Iowa with actual holocaust survivors.  Can you imagine the inner turmoil of Jewish lawyers arguing on behalf of Nazis? They believed the freedom of speech being a fundamental necessity to fighting oppression, is more important than muh feels or orange man bad. 

 

Well said, your whole post is A+. I also take the perspective you do on the term 'operative' not as a conspiracy just as you describe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenwald provides a good summary in this video. It doesn’t matter that it’s Tucker interviewing him because it’s mostly Greenwald explaining his side of the story.

 

If this was anyone but Greenwald I would think they worked for info wars, but all this does is confirm there is actually an info war happening right in front of us and it’s not simply media bias.
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Greenwald is pissed, especially now he was censored right after speaking about it on Rogan, but in that position I'm not sure I take the interview with Tucker. I guess any liberal bias media wouldn't have him on because they know what comes out of his mouth is a direct missile to their agenda. Sad, there isn't another mainstream choice.

 

But damn good interview nonetheless

Edited by XBassX
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know much about polls

 

i googled the most legitimate presidential polls in 2016 and this what i found. 
 

If this poll is accurate.....
 

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/
 

and this....

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/biden-vs-trump-ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/

 

 

Trafalgar suggests a Trump win electorally.  IBD suggests Biden has a decent lead but that the swing states are really close 

Edited by Preston_Luv
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aupoker1 said:

Deep state poll

 

 

 

is it your point that you believe fox to be less controlled by the msm elite?

or

is it that you really think that all news is not controlled?

or 

do you feel trumpsters are in such a brain dead state, that they feel that fox is not as equally controlled?

 

i did not really miss the point, i just had to narrow it down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kowboy8686 said:

 

is it your point that you believe fox to be less controlled by the msm elite?

or

is it that you really think that all news is not controlled?

or 

do you feel trumpsters are in such a brain dead state, that they feel that fox is not as equally controlled?

 

i did not really miss the point, i just had to narrow it down.


im not sure why anyone would take any media sponsored polling seriously. 
 

Fox, cnn, cbs, NY Times, etc are all full of fucking Flaws and as a result often widely inaccurate 

 

Most people realize this is the likely scenario

 

Biden wins popular vote by 2-4%.  Most would be shocked if Trump won popular. 
 

Electoral is a toss up with Biden having the slight advantage.  Only the sheep would be surprised if Trump won the electoral 

Edited by Preston_Luv
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Josecanseco10 said:


I get the feeling that outside of ice cube most of the rappers that endorse Trump aren’t the most politically engaged bunch.

 

Kanye is running for President. thats as engaged as one can get. He wore the maga hat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get'em Joe.  Your Army awaits you.

 

Biden Has 4,000 Lawyers on Standby in Florida for Possible Election Recount

 

 

Democratic nominee Joe Biden has a whopping 4,000 lawyers standing by or already working in Florida to either avoid or combat an election recount next week, according to New York Magazine. The attorneys have been examining ballot designs, monitoring local officials who’ve been counting the state’s early votes, and watching canvassing boards. The mag reports that the goal of these thousands of Democratic lawyers is to ensure that as many votes as possible are counted so as to pave the way for a clear victory in the key swing state. Biden has also stationed lawyers from the Obama administration throughout the nation as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.