DHS collaborating with FB and Twitter to censor information

[Anonymous]

The Hunter laptop story was part of the groundwork for January 6th.

If you haven't figured that out yet, I can't help you.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

This was actually reported on "right wing propaganda sites" on 27th of Oct, with documentation. Mainstream ignored it until they could not.

[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.

As you know (and are ignoring), there were a bunch of anti-Trump folk in that administration. He should have totally cleaned house when he first came in.

[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.

As you know (and are ignoring), there were a bunch of anti-Trump folk in that administration. He should have totally cleaned house when he first came in.

That's not how our federal government works. Or should work. You don't fire career people - then the government wouldn't function at all. In any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I'm speaking from experience. Maybe you're motivated solely by money - but at the higher levels, there's plenty of money, that's not the main driver. For better or worse.

[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.

As you know (and are ignoring), there were a bunch of anti-Trump folk in that administration. He should have totally cleaned house when he first came in.

President Not My Fault.

[Anonymous]

So the title should be "Trump era DHS collaborated with FB and Twitter to censor information"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the title should be "Trump era DHS collaborated with FB and Twitter to censor information"?

This idea has been floated for a while, they talked about it under Obama but the problems were immediately obvious to everyone, liberals and conservatives etc.

Blaming this on Trump or on anti-Trumpers is beside the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the title should be "Trump era DHS collaborated with FB and Twitter to censor information"?

But but Trump isn't responsible for anything his administration actually did. All the bad stuff was the fault of anti-Trump people. Also, he was a great leader that everyone respected. Except when they ignored everything he told them to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the title should be "Trump era DHS collaborated with FB and Twitter to censor information"?

This idea has been floated for a while, they talked about it under Obama but the problems were immediately obvious to everyone, liberals and conservatives etc.

Blaming this on Trump or on anti-Trumpers is beside the point.

But it happened under Trump, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the title should be "Trump era DHS collaborated with FB and Twitter to censor information"?

This idea has been floated for a while, they talked about it under Obama but the problems were immediately obvious to everyone, liberals and conservatives etc.

Blaming this on Trump or on anti-Trumpers is beside the point.

But it happened under Trump, right?

The buck stops somewhere else is the Trump family motto

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the title should be "Trump era DHS collaborated with FB and Twitter to censor information"?

This idea has been floated for a while, they talked about it under Obama but the problems were immediately obvious to everyone, liberals and conservatives etc.

Blaming this on Trump or on anti-Trumpers is beside the point.

But it happened under Trump, right?

I'd say the more important question is, should someone (a federal agency? a group of journalists? Wikipedia?) decide which facts are legitimate and/or decide which facts are misinformation or fake? And if so, what would be a proper way to do it, ethically and legally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the title should be "Trump era DHS collaborated with FB and Twitter to censor information"?

This idea has been floated for a while, they talked about it under Obama but the problems were immediately obvious to everyone, liberals and conservatives etc.

Blaming this on Trump or on anti-Trumpers is beside the point.

But it happened under Trump, right?

I'd say the more important question is, should someone (a federal agency? a group of journalists? Wikipedia?) decide which facts are legitimate and/or decide which facts are misinformation or fake? And if so, what would be a proper way to do it, ethically and legally?

I don’t think the government was “deciding.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any tool can be abused. Some tools should not exist due to their potential for abuse. Would you want the Trump administration to be able to censor "disinformation?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the title should be "Trump era DHS collaborated with FB and Twitter to censor information"?

It's still going on.