DHS collaborating with FB and Twitter to censor information

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is remarkably silent on this thread

Agree. I brought his attention to it when it was about 3 replies. He removed one reply, but this thread reads like two sock puppets who spank it to the Gateway Pundit.

I don't know anything about this topic. It was just posted last night and I was busy with Halloween and the Pelosi thread. I don't want to comment on something about which I am uniformed. I will say that I respect Lee Fang so I suspect this is not entirely BS. I also know that the government coordinates with private industry in a whole host of matters. There is not anything necessarily nefarious about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crazy stuff. I read here all the time that Twitter and FB are private companies, so free speech doesn't apply when they censor information.
When the government tells them what to suppress or censor, it is a matter of free speech.

This took place in 2020. Who was president then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crazy stuff. I read here all the time that Twitter and FB are private companies, so free speech doesn't apply when they censor information.
When the government tells them what to suppress or censor, it is a matter of free speech.

This took place in 2020. Who was president then?

So what I'm understanding here is that the Trump DHS pressured Twitter to censor information that the Trump DHS didn't like. That does seem like a problem for republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a corporation with free speech under the first amendment, I have the right to listen to the advice of my government.

Sure. Anyone has the right to listen to the advice of the government.
As a corporation, do you also have the right to censor the ideas and information of others because the government tells you to?

Yes, you can do that, if you wish. Or you can choose not to do that. Corporations can do things that they choose to do or that they are compelled to do, by shareholders, laws, etc.

So you believe the government should tell tech companies what to allow and what not? I’ll remember that when Rs are in power!

Do you know why Trump's insurrection didn't succeed? Because most people, in government and in general, are sensible people who prefer to do the right thing. The same is true of tech companies, too.

Trump's so-called insurrection didn't succeed for a whole host of reasons... the most important of which is because there was essentially zero popular support for an insurrection. That was also reflected in government where there was also more or less no support for it.

[Anonymous]

Tech companies only requirement is to make money. This drive doesn’t always fall inline with democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a corporation with free speech under the first amendment, I have the right to listen to the advice of my government.

Sure. Anyone has the right to listen to the advice of the government.
As a corporation, do you also have the right to censor the ideas and information of others because the government tells you to?

Yes, you can do that, if you wish. Or you can choose not to do that. Corporations can do things that they choose to do or that they are compelled to do, by shareholders, laws, etc.

So you believe the government should tell tech companies what to allow and what not? I’ll remember that when Rs are in power!

Do you know why Trump's insurrection didn't succeed? Because most people, in government and in general, are sensible people who prefer to do the right thing. The same is true of tech companies, too.

Trump's so-called insurrection didn't succeed for a whole host of reasons... the most important of which is because there was essentially zero popular support for an insurrection. That was also reflected in government where there was also more or less no support for it.

Yes, because it was the wrong thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tech companies only requirement is to make money. This drive doesn’t always fall inline with democracy.

Lol

No, most tech companies really want to change the world for the better. They may or may not have the same vision of better that you do, but that's their mission. Making money is the means - and if it doesn't happen here, it'll happen there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disinformation are lies. Freedom of speech should not extend to lies. But the fact that some of you would praise RT over our own media companies tells me all I need to know. I’m stunned that folks think RT is legitimate media but criticize the MSM as government sponsored. Your thinking is beyond f**ed up.

+1

We need to only read and hear what we want to read!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is remarkably silent on this thread

Agree. I brought his attention to it when it was about 3 replies. He removed one reply, but this thread reads like two sock puppets who spank it to the Gateway Pundit.

So you want him to censor a legitimate topic because you don’t like it?

Lol

[Anonymous]

So it turns out that after years of accusing Democrats of collaborating with social media companies to censor conservatives, in fact it was the Trump administration that was collaborating with social media on censorship. It's always projection with the GOP.

[Anonymous]

This is the definition of fascism, a term that gets misused often on here. Government working hand in glove with large corporations to stifle dissent is the text book definition of fascism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it turns out that after years of accusing Democrats of collaborating with social media companies to censor conservatives, in fact it was the Trump administration that was collaborating with social media on censorship. It's always projection with the GOP.

+100

And yet, Republican trolls will mewl incessantly about censorship anyway. Since, apparently, people on Twitter dunking on their easily-falsified conspiracy theories and half-baked musings is robbing them of their rights, or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the definition of fascism, a term that gets misused often on here. Government working hand in glove with large corporations to stifle dissent is the text book definition of fascism.

You've got the definition right but the application wrong. "Dissent" is a keyword here. Disinformation and fake news including foreign fake news is not dissent or honest discourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech companies only requirement is to make money. This drive doesn’t always fall inline with democracy.

Lol

No, most tech companies really want to change the world for the better. They may or may not have the same vision of better that you do, but that's their mission. Making money is the means - and if it doesn't happen here, it'll happen there.

Oh you bought the myth that Silicon Valley loves. Sure they want to make the world better place. I work in tech. Everyone is a mercenary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it turns out that after years of accusing Democrats of collaborating with social media companies to censor conservatives, in fact it was the Trump administration that was collaborating with social media on censorship. It's always projection with the GOP.

+100

And yet, Republican trolls will mewl incessantly about censorship anyway. Since, apparently, people on Twitter dunking on their easily-falsified conspiracy theories and half-baked musings is robbing them of their rights, or something.

Yes, it does seem to usually be GOP projection.
Can't wait to see what a mass of crap Twitter turns into now.