Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
Places with heavy moderation, ie censorship, tend to become left leaning in the modern day. Because the moderators tend to be busy bodies. And most of those are lefty. Have been for decades.
The media companies willingly do it.
Simple as.
They can say no.
You are basically saying the media companies can't conduct in thier own buisness. That they have to be open to all.
Its called conspiracy against rights, the potential penalties goes all the way up to death penalty. It has not been enforced for far too long. What conservatives need more than anything else is federal prosecutors with a thirst for blood.The govt "suggesting" or "bribing" corpos to violate the 1st amendment is in itself a case of the govt violating the 1st amendment.
Govt doesn't have to use force to violate the 1st amendment.
The govt is totally forbidden from doing this shit, even in a "soft" manner like "suggestions" and "bribes" and so on.
It should be illegal for the government to even ask.You see. The argument is.
It's a company that got asked. Not threatened.
They are not the US government. They can ban what ever as they are a private enti
Optymist.Left have mass media and public schools to steal our children.And,their ideal is world green gulag for us.This is already happening right now, only the right gets censored deplatformed debanked and periodically murdered in the streets by left wing actors. The best we can do right now is an evener playing field. With that well the left simply does not understand the value of money and goes through it quickly while we understand its value and can thus outlast them and get better value for our buck.
Add to that the left basically not having children and the right owns the long term but you still need to get your message out at all hence this.
No, I'm saying it should be illegal for the government to ask the private company to do so. What do you not understand about that?So...you want it so private corporations can't control what they put on thier site? Forcing the government to force them not to censor anything?
You are literally the meme of the snake getting stomped on by a boot saying, "at least it's not the government doing it."The media companies willingly do it.
Simple as.
They can say no.
You are basically saying the media companies can't conduct in thier own buisness. That they have to be open to all.
THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T FUCKING ALLOWED TO FUCKING ASK!!!!!!! It doesn't fucking matter if any "force" was involved. IT WAS WRONG OF THEM TO EVEN ASK! What part of that do you not understand?The diffrence is, the government did not force them.
That is what thw case is about. No forcing.
It was voluntary to remove it
It's because the argument is that the Government threatened and forced it.Looks like the SC is getting ready to side with the Biden administration over White House social media meddling and manipulation
Loading…
www.washingtonpost.com
Yes, that is the better option, if the other option is allowing the gov to backdoor censor via 'asking'.So...you want it so private corporations can't control what they put on thier site? Forcing the government to force them not to censor anything?
You do realize this like that meme about 'don't tread on me' not counting when it private corporations.It's a private company.
They should be able to do what ever.
The government would then have to allow grooming of children to be allowed because guess what
Stopping it would be going against free speech.
Or calling for so many things from the left would be allowed as well. And the right wouldn't be able to stop it
Uh, sure, as if this isn't the same sort of argument that allows businesses to shit all over conservatives for their politics already.The media companies willingly do it.
Simple as.
They can say no.
You are basically saying the media companies can't conduct in thier own buisness. That they have to be open to all.
...talk about trying to shut the barn door after the horse has already bolted.I understand that, but it opens the door to mass leftist ideology being shoved more heavily by the companies themselves outside of them being asked too censor the right
His line of reasoning comes from being an intel grunt who is serving DC, and thus from being the 'boot' in this situation.Yeah, like when the mob ordered small businesses to pay them every month. They could have totally said "no".
You are missing the obvious intimidation factor in having the FBI or NSA contact you and "suggest" you ban certain topics or individuals, and then supplement that with a nice cash incentive (such as was the case with Twitter before Musk bought it).
Your line of reasoning is weak.
not why.It's because the argument is that the Government threatened and forced it.
Which they find unfounded from what I understand
Pure sitcom material.