ADVERTISEMENT

Zuck Discusses Biden and Censorship

Who has musk censored on X? And what does suing a retired fraud pollster for lying have to do with censorship?
How is she a fraud, it's a poll
Who has musk censored on X? And what does suing a retired fraud pollster for lying have to do with censorship?

Musk doesn't like criticism

And how is the pollster a fraud? She has been running this poll for decades and been pretty accurate. So just because she was wrong makes her a fraud? By definition Trump has actually been convicted of fraudulent actions.
 
How is she a fraud, it's a poll

Musk doesn't like criticism

And how is the pollster a fraud? She has been running this poll for decades and been pretty accurate. So just because she was wrong makes her a fraud? By definition Trump has actually been convicted of fraudulent actions.
Pretty accurate? Lmao she was off by what, 19 points?

And while I love you coming to white knight for Laura loomer, she isn't censored. She is without a blue check mark but can still freely post. Facebook was deleting content and banning posters outright (as was twitter 1.0). They did it at the behest of the government. The fact that you can't tell the difference is concerning but not surprising.
 
Didnt happen. Not illegal. Not censorship either.

And I support anti fascist.

Don't you?
Yeah. It did. He said as much. As did the twitter files. Censorship.

No you don't. You're defending actual fascism. I believe you support those antifa retards larping around pretending to be revolutionaries for justice by assaulting people and destroying property though.
 
Show me where the government suppressed or prohibited something.
In early 2021, and continuing primarily through that year, the Director of Digital Strategy and members of the COVID–19 response team interacted with the platforms about their efforts to suppress vaccine misinformation. They expressed concern that Facebook in particular was “one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy,” due to the spread of allegedly false or misleading claims on the platform. App. 659–660. Thus, the officials peppered Facebook (and to a lesser extent, Twitter and YouTube) with detailed questions about their policies, pushed them to suppress certain content, and sometimes recommended policy changes. Some of these communications were more aggressive than others. For example, the director of Digital Strategy, frustrated that Facebook had not removed a particular4 MURTHY v. MISSOURI Opinion of the Court post, complained: “[L]ast time we did this dance, it ended in an insurrection.” Id., at 698. Another official, unhappy with Facebook’s supposed lack of transparency about its vaccine misinformation problems, wrote: “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.” Id., at 657. Publicly, White House communications officials called on the platforms to do more to address COVID–19misinformation—and, perhaps as motivation, raised the possibility of reforms aimed at the platforms, including changes to the antitrust laws and 47 U. S. C. §230.
 
Yeah. It did. He said as much. As did the twitter files. Censorship.

No you don't. You're defending actual fascism. I believe you support those antifa retards larping around pretending to be revolutionaries for justice by assaulting people and destroying property though.
Are you anti or pro fascist?
 
In early 2021, and continuing primarily through that year, the Director of Digital Strategy and members of the COVID–19 response team interacted with the platforms about their efforts to suppress vaccine misinformation. They expressed concern that Facebook in particular was “one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy,” due to the spread of allegedly false or misleading claims on the platform. App. 659–660. Thus, the officials peppered Facebook (and to a lesser extent, Twitter and YouTube) with detailed questions about their policies, pushed them to suppress certain content, and sometimes recommended policy changes. Some of these communications were more aggressive than others. For example, the director of Digital Strategy, frustrated that Facebook had not removed a particular4 MURTHY v. MISSOURI Opinion of the Court post, complained: “[L]ast time we did this dance, it ended in an insurrection.” Id., at 698. Another official, unhappy with Facebook’s supposed lack of transparency about its vaccine misinformation problems, wrote: “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.” Id., at 657. Publicly, White House communications officials called on the platforms to do more to address COVID–19misinformation—and, perhaps as motivation, raised the possibility of reforms aimed at the platforms, including changes to the antitrust laws and 47 U. S. C. §230.
"Expressing concern," and calling on platforms, "to do more to address Covid-19 Misinformation," is definitely not censorship, patriot. Far from it actually. You still haven't show where the government has, "suppressed or prohibited," anything.

I expect my government to lean on social media platforms when there's as much misinformation as there is. Why would you be in favor of unabated misinformation?
 
Show me where the government suppressed or prohibited something.

the officials peppered Facebook (and to a lesser extent, Twitter and YouTube) with detailed questions about their policies, pushed them to suppress certain content

If you don't call the government 'pushing to suppress certain content' censorship, what do you call it?
 
the officials peppered Facebook (and to a lesser extent, Twitter and YouTube) with detailed questions about their policies, pushed them to suppress certain content

If you don't call the government 'pushing to suppress certain content' censorship, what do you call it?
I call that the government making a request that Zuckenberg has repeatedly claimed FB said no to.

How is that censorship?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NoWokeBloke
I expect my government to lean on social media platforms

'Lean on' them to do what?

hint:
noun
  1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
when there's as much misinformation as there is. Why would you be in favor of unabated misinformation?
They were pressuring to censor true information that countered preferred government narratives.
Why do you think bureaucrats should be the authority on truth?

Is this misinformation?

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” - Joe Biden
 
I call that the government making a request that Zuckenberg has repeatedly claimed FB said no to.

How is that censorship?

Because the government is 'requesting':
  1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
That's the definition of censorship. You don't have another word for it.
 
Because the government is 'requesting':
  1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
That's the definition of censorship. You don't have another word for it.
Requesting is not the same as suppressing or prohibiting. If the government forced the platform to suppress, that's different all together.

Aren't words fun?
 
Requesting is not the same as suppressing or prohibiting. If the government forced the platform to suppress, that's different all together.

Aren't words fun?
Would pressure be considered force? I mean being subpoenaed to congress to testify in and of itself would be a form of pressure. If there was any direction from any member of the US Federal Government telling FB or any of the social media platforms what can be shared and what can't; If they are deciding what is fact and what isn't... that's censorship almost by the webster definition.

This went passed Covid too. The Hunter Biden laptop comes to mind. That story couldn't be shared on social media. Any of the pics that were circulating would be automatically removed and the accounts that re-posted them were suspended at the request of the federal government.
 
Requesting is not the same as suppressing or prohibiting. If the government forced the platform to suppress, that's different all together.

They're 'requesting' the suppression and prohibition at the same time they're threatening to regulate these companies 'out of business'.
All you've managed to do is pretend(?) you're too stupid to realize what they're 'requesting'.

First it was, 'the government isn't asking them to do this', now the evidence is out, so the goal posts have shifted to, 'the government just threatened them if they wouldn't do it, they didn't force them'.

Do you have any clue how debased that argument is? How dumb you look trying to make it?

Aren't words fun?

You sure as hell don't have another fun word for what they're 'requesting'.
It's censorship they're 'requesting'.
 
They're 'requesting' the suppression and prohibition at the same time they're threatening to regulate these companies 'out of business'.
All you've managed to do is pretend(?) you're too stupid to realize what they're 'requesting'.

First it was, 'the government isn't asking them to do this', now the evidence is out, so the goal posts have shifted to, 'the government just threatened them if they wouldn't do it, they didn't force them'.

Do you have any clue how debased that argument is? How dumb you look trying to make it?



You sure as hell don't have another fun word for what they're 'requesting'.
It's censorship they're 'requesting'.

"They told us to take it down, and we said, 'no.' "
--Mark Zuckerberg

If this is censorship to you, there's a 6th grade social studies class with your name on it.
 
They wanted it censored, correct?
According to Zuckerberg, they asked him to remove something, and he said no.

Even if he said yes, it's still not censorship. Because the platform has the authority to post and remove content.

The government didn't have that authority, and it wasn't removed, according to Zuckenberg.

I know it sucks when words and facts get in the way of your narrative, but keep swinging, patriot.
 
They're 'requesting' the suppression and prohibition at the same time they're threatening to regulate these companies 'out of business'.
All you've managed to do is pretend(?) you're too stupid to realize what they're 'requesting'.

First it was, 'the government isn't asking them to do this', now the evidence is out, so the goal posts have shifted to, 'the government just threatened them if they wouldn't do it, they didn't force them'.

Do you have any clue how debased that argument is? How dumb you look trying to make it?



You sure as hell don't have another fun word for what they're 'requesting'.
It's censorship they're 'requesting'.
It's always that way no matter what the topic. It's not REALLY happening it's just right wing conspiracy show me a link... then we provide a link or several links confirming this is indeed happening... then it goes to well... maybe it happened like 1 time, but that's it so it's not a big deal... then we show it's happened a lot or it was a big deal and has a major impact... then it changes to BUT TRUMP.

It's like the grieving cycle of democrats today.. Denial, Acceptance, Blame Trump. Rinse and Repeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scruddy
Yeah...it's me...in my first post that's "trying to hard". For such a stickler with language, I bet you get real loose with your definitions when it comes to the phrase "led an insurrection on 1/6". I bet there's no wiggle rom there.
You lost me when comparing censorship to sexual harassment, and now you're throwing in some unrelated J6 reference.

That's what you call a steak-to-apple-juice comparison.

Makes no sense, patriot.
 
"Expressing concern," and calling on platforms, "to do more to address Covid-19 Misinformation," is definitely not censorship, patriot. Far from it actually. You still haven't show where the government has, "suppressed or prohibited," anything.

I expect my government to lean on social media platforms when there's as much misinformation as there is. Why would you be in favor of unabated misinformation?
The misinformation came from the government. I expect our government to be truthful, and if they are, they have less to fear than lying to us and suppressing the truth.
 
The misinformation came from the government. I expect our government to be truthful, and if they are, they have less to fear than lying to us and suppressing the truth.
Everyone expects the government to be truthful. That opinion doesn't make you unique.

Are you ok with Russia spreading misinformation on U.S.-owned social media platforms?
 
Everyone expects the government to be truthful. That opinion doesn't make you unique.

Are you ok with Russia spreading misinformation on U.S.-owned social media platforms?
I’d rather there be Russian disinformation than censorship of potentially true domestic information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scruddy
I remember a few years ago when people mentioned this happening, they were told they were a "conspiracy theorist". Its funny how most of those have ended up being true.
While it may be funny (and I agree, it is funny), if those same morons are using the term "censorship" incorrectly, it's STILL a conspiracy theory, patriot.
 
7 days till glory
excited happy redneck GIF by Redneck Island
 
No difference. Both are requests.

Requests to do what?
That's what you keep dancing away from.
It was a request to censor.

You are ok with the government requesting censorship of true information, under threat of regulating the request recipient "out of business", if that information contravenes narratives the government prefers.

You've made that clear.

You think if people comply with government requests to censor information under threat of being driven out of business, that censorship at the behest of government hasn't happened.

And you're wrong.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT