Most know they are, but it appears CNN is admitting it.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/...-remove-trump/
Printable View
Most know they are, but it appears CNN is admitting it.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/...-remove-trump/
Caught on tape confirming what we already figured out
The liberals on Twitter were making ever excuse they could. A few liberals said it’s ok if the government controls the media. Haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by st33lersguy
Well, them admitting that already makes them a little more honest than Fox News :chuckle:
My favorite part of all this aggrieved patriots nonsense is that right wingers want to claim that they are a victimized and oppressed minority group while at the same time their opinions/viewpoints represent the overwhelming numerical majority of Americans and anything that indicates other than that is faked, manipulated, or otherwise doctored.Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
All the while looking for safe spaces to hang out in.
Wake up America!! All mainstream media is propaganda. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. It’s all propaganda. Keep trying to convince yourself otherwise.
C'mon man, CNN is so legit!Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertSteel
Yup, that is why this Fake News Channel is about the most reliable thing out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertSteel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07II_EJlcYg
Gotta love how Fox news though loves to bash the 'mainstream media', as if they're not the mainstream media themselves lol
But didnt they testify in a lawsuit that they are not actually "newsmedia", but rather "entertainment"? That was the reason why one of their on air personalities could openly lie about a topic, because it was just entertainment and not news. I seem to recall something about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Goodell
I heard something about that. Honestly if that's the case they shouldn't be legally allowed to call themselves 'News'Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
Both Tucker Carlson and Bill Oreilly avoided massive lawsuits by legally claiming their shows were entertainment and NOT news/meant to inform. Far too lazy to look up the details but I believe it was all part of the actual defense that the Fox News corporate lawyers concocted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Goodell
I get all of my info from the National Enquirer!Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
- - - Updated - - -
Should any of them???Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Goodell
Have you ever thought of getting yourself checked for TDS?? You seem to be the one that most often refers to the former guy on these boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
In case you were not aware, he kind of left and is living at a country club the last I heard.
Self-awareness is not your strong suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
Quite the contrary. Self awareness is a strength of mine, as was demonstrated in several personality tests that I have taken over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
I'm not the one on these boards denying the obvious, based upon their political biases. Facts are facts.....they dont vote.
Your right facts are facts, Mr. 101 I'm smarter than 85% of the population.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/30/f7...2e1b4b6f9d.jpg
No. If ANY news source is blatantly inaccurate they should be held accountable. We live in a time where misinformation can just be downright dangerous (with the internet especially and all where information travels in an instant)Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertSteel
:rofl2: By that table you are using, math isnt your strong suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
I expect that, as most folks in your neck of the woods think that GED stands for Git, Er Done! :toofunny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaDoBtarJ_U
Face it you're nothing special, Special Ed maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
https://memecrunch.com/meme/1UM91/wi....png?w=400&c=1
Is this the same way the left loves to 'bash the fash?'Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Goodell
No, that was more fake news from liberals.Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
just more disinformation and projections from the Libs ... bottom line until you live it and experience it you are clueless ... you can not create and experiment in a vacuum that doesnt live in a vacuum and expect it to live the same ... if you disagree with the mantra of the Liberal controlled social media giants you get warnings , labels put on your posts and so many warning you get a certain features taken away for a time frame then complete posting capability for a few days then a week then a month then banned permanently if the first one hasnt " worn off yet " ...
post anything against what Facebook claims on Covid ( even if it comes directly from the CDC and it will get a warning label put on it ) dont believe me go do it and find out ...these social media giants do not permit freedom of speech of freedom of expression or thought , they demand you tow the line of their logic and thinking or suffer some sort of consequence
Thanks but I dont care to "live it or experience it". I dont really care about how many retweets, followers, likes or posts I would get on twitter, Instagram, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
the problem with a lot of social media, is that lots of people on it think its a source of news and information and dont bother to learn, before spreading the disinformation. Its just like there are probably hundreds of thousands of people that think a vaccine turns you into Magneto, because some idiot is pushing that theory on social media. Freedom of speech, doesnt mean freedom to spread false propaganda.
The irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
lol, look at the little pretzel-brain trying so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
Freedom of speech means EXACTLY the freedom to spread false propaganda, or anything else you would like, so long as it's not illegal. Who is to judge what is false or propaganda? You? Let's hope not. If no one had questioned "settled science" with their far-out conspiracy theories and propaganda, we would still believe the Earth was flat and the stars were little points of aether on a dome, and deserts were hotter because that's where the sun passes the lowest.
Unless it is speech that is libelous or some type of illegal activity, a social media platform is forbidden from restricting it, period. That is, unless Facebook or Twitter are ok with giving up their legal status as "platforms" and instead becoming "publishers" who accept liability for any content posted on their service. The law is pretty cut and dry on this.
"But of course that may be a bit much for you to comprehend."
So again you think that insulting somebody actually makes your point. :rofl: I bet that is why you are in the position that you are in life. Keep on yelling at windmills, I bet it helps. :der:Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
“Sometimes, the loudest person in the room is not the smartest person. Sometimes the loudest person in the room is not the person who has all the facts on their side or the truth on their side."
Definitely some truth to the above quote.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2021/07/pac...ersy-quiet/amp
for some of you .. I wont mention names
[IMG]
https://i.postimg.cc/0jQfmZBR/207984...79443670-n.jpg[/IMG]
Is the law that clear? Because multiple places that claim to be drawn from Section 230 are saying basically the opposite:Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
From https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28...m-distinction/
"That led Congress to enact the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which tried to limit online porn; but the Court struck that down in Reno v. ACLU (1997). Part of the Act, though, remained: 47 U.S.C. § 230, which basically immunized all Internet service and content providers platforms from liability for their users' speech—whether or not they blocked or removed certain kinds of speech. Congress, then, deliberately provided platform immunity to entities that (unlike traditional platforms) could and did select what user content to keep up. It did so precisely to encourage platforms to block or remove certain speech (without requiring them to do so), by removing a disincentive (loss of immunity) that would have otherwise come with such selectivity. And it gave them this flexibility regardless of how the platforms exercised this function."
"Under current law, Twitter, Facebook, and the like are immune as platforms, regardless of whether they edit (including in a politicized way). Like it or not, but this was a deliberate decision by Congress. You might prefer an "if you restrict your users' speech, you become liable for the speech you allow" model. Indeed, that was the model accepted by the court in Stratton Oakmont. But Congress rejected this model, and that rejection stands so long as § 230 remains in its current form."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/1...-doesnt-matter
"One of the primary purposes of Section 230 was to remove this disincentive and encourage online intermediaries to actively curate and edit their sites without being so penalized. Former Rep. Chris Cox, one of the co-authors of Section 230, recalls finding it “surpassingly stupid” that before Section 230, courts effectively disincentivized platforms from engaging in any speech moderation. And Congress recognized that even the notice-based liability that attached to distributors created the prospect of the “heckler’s veto,” whereby one who wants the speech censored tells the distributor about it and the distributor removes the speech without devoting any resources to investigating whether the objection had any merit."
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/1...seff-interview (figured a US Naval Academy Prof might know what he is talking about):
"I spoke with both [Section 230 architects] Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and former Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) extensively, and I spoke with most of the lobbyists who were involved at the time. None of them said that there was this intent for platforms to be neutral. In fact, that was the opposite. They wanted platforms to feel free to make these judgments without risking the liability that Prodigy faced."
"How do you think the mistake that Section 230 is about splitting internet services into categories of “platform” or “publisher” came about?
I have no idea! That’s just not, I mean... I don’t know."
Reading the law and the various precedent setting cases...it appears that the key phrasing for the courts is "interactive computer service" 9https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id =47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=). Once you pass that comically low-bar for legal standing/coverage by Section 230 - you can do whatever you want.
From my reading it appears that in the US Court system there is no distinction between platform/publisher/distributor/insert noun here once you meet the standard for "interactive computer service". I can't even find a legal definition for the other terms or a court decision applying them.
If Congress hadn't freaked out over porn on Prodigy in the early dial-up days....we wouldn't even be having this conversation! From porn to arguing over what protected speech is on the internet....that is full of porn.....
Well, that marvelous screed aside, you are still left with the question. "Regardless of whether or not you could be technically allowed, is it good to censor public speech of any kind? Should you do it?" The answer to that is no, it is not good and you should not - unless you are a believer of a certain Fourth Reich cult that, for some reason, people seem to think should get a pass. Whether your armchair legal interpretation is correct or not, you've got nothing to be proud of there, bucko.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Always nice to see your willingness to discuss things in an open and calm manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
I was actually asking a question and attempting to lay out what I thought I knew based on previous information I had come across. You stated a very different POV with a high degree of certainty. Now...it seems that your confidence in the legal interpretation has slipped and the conversation is shifting into murkier waters.
Again...if there is a component of the current legal interpretation of Section 203 that I am not properly understanding or aware of (almost certainly); I would love to hear about it because this is going to be one of the most utilized portions of US legal code moving forward. But...it seems...you may not actually have many facts or data....because as soon as your "law is pretty cut and dry" statement was challenged, you pivoted to an argument that no one but you was making...interesting.
A simple "Heil" would have sufficed, we know which side you're on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
So…once again you made a big claim about something you know little about and now have to weasel out of the discussion when presented with evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
pretty cut and dried.
Taking a page from your book - I know plenty about this and many other subjects, but there is nothing that I or anyone else could say that would change your mind, so what's the point. It's just like that time you wanted to argue about climate change and got your asshole absolutely jackhammered into oblivion by science and mathematics, then weaseled out of it with something to the effect of "well, I just don't think you're putting enough importance on certain things."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
So, better to just cut to the chase. You're a member of a hate group that supports racism, violence, political repression, and censorship. That kind of taints all of the ideas and opinions that you pour forth. Even if they may be technically or legally allowed (a big if), they're still pretty, you know ... gross. That you belong to an unusually large hate group doesn't change the fact that it is one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson
Anything that'll get him infront of the cameras or in the newspapers.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR3f95BGIiA
So that is still a "NO" on your clear reading of the law that apparently is not backed by the US Court system, Congress, legal profession, legal scholars, or basically anyone that has actual knowledge about 230?Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
Again...I opted to graciously leave the climate discussion with you before it turned unpleasant because your almost total ignorance on the matter and unwillingness to see the massive logical gaps you were leaping was difficult to engage with without disparaging your overall mindset.
Just because you state that something is a known fact and indisputable doesn't make it so. You have never (because you can't) provided a single reputable source, scientist, or acknowledged expert to back up any of your bold assertions about how the law, science, and what not actually work. You just spout a hodge-podge of alt-right and neo-libertarian ideas almost certainly cobbled together from faux political intellectuals on the internet.
That is absolutely, effin' incredibly hilarious!! :toofunny::rofl2::cry02:Quote:
Originally Posted by willy
Nobody knows more about knowing more......