An FBI agent's testimony in a freedom of speech case confirms that
the bureau ran an operation during the 2020 election that requested
social media companies remove content as disinformation, suggesting
the government’s requests succeeded about half of the time and were conducted with a "headquarter stamp of approval."
Who said gov't agencies were not involved in censoring free speech?
He was very very wrong.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/fbi-agents-testimony-implicates-headquarters-brass-social-media
On 12/8/22 12:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
An FBI agent's testimony in a freedom of speech case confirms that
the bureau ran an operation during the 2020 election that requested
social media companies remove content as disinformation, suggesting
the government’s requests succeeded about half of the time and were conducted with a "headquarter stamp of approval."
Who said gov't agencies were not involved in censoring free speech?Requests aren't censorship, especially when they're only honored half
the time.
He was very very wrong.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/fbi-agents-testimony-implicates-headquarters-brass-social-mediaI can only guess what disinformation you're demanding be tolerated.
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/8/22 12:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
An FBI agent's testimony in a freedom of speech case confirms thatRequests aren't censorship, especially when they're only honored half
the bureau ran an operation during the 2020 election that requested
social media companies remove content as disinformation, suggesting
the government’s requests succeeded about half of the time and were
conducted with a "headquarter stamp of approval."
Who said gov't agencies were not involved in censoring free speech?
the time.
LoL Who can argue with crazy?
He was very very wrong.I can only guess what disinformation you're demanding be tolerated.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/fbi-agents-testimony-implicates-headquarters-brass-social-media
I don't care. As long as it wasn't illegal it has to be tolerated.
Once you start censoring upon what you decide is tolerable....free speech as we know it is over.
On 12/8/22 6:50 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/8/22 12:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
An FBI agent's testimony in a freedom of speech case confirms thatRequests aren't censorship, especially when they're only honored half
the bureau ran an operation during the 2020 election that requested
social media companies remove content as disinformation, suggesting
the government’s requests succeeded about half of the time and were >>> conducted with a "headquarter stamp of approval."
Who said gov't agencies were not involved in censoring free speech?
the time.
LoL Who can argue with crazy?Censorship is when the government *requires* you to take down content.
He was very very wrong.I can only guess what disinformation you're demanding be tolerated.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/fbi-agents-testimony-implicates-headquarters-brass-social-media
I don't care. As long as it wasn't illegal it has to be tolerated.What if the platform doesn't want to host disinformation,
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 7:28:58 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/8/22 6:50 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Censorship is when the government *requires* you to take down content.
On 12/8/22 12:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
An FBI agent's testimony in a freedom of speech case confirms thatRequests aren't censorship, especially when they're only honored half
the bureau ran an operation during the 2020 election that requested
social media companies remove content as disinformation, suggesting
the government’s requests succeeded about half of the time and were >>>>> conducted with a "headquarter stamp of approval."
Who said gov't agencies were not involved in censoring free speech?
the time.
LoL Who can argue with crazy?
BS...if they ask and it's taken down...the author was censored. Period.
The FBI asks and Schumer threatens with subpoena.... and Stephen's
twisted opinion is all is well.
What if the platform doesn't want to host disinformation,He was very very wrong.I can only guess what disinformation you're demanding be tolerated.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/fbi-agents-testimony-implicates-headquarters-brass-social-media
I don't care. As long as it wasn't illegal it has to be tolerated.
Then they crossed a line and now manage content which should void their section 230 exemption.
Here's a good summary of the situation with lots of solid links. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2022/10/27/social-media-companies-and-common-carrier-status-a-primer/
Bottom line....are they a common carrier or not? We have competing circuit court rulings that need to be addressed
by SCOTUS.
My feeling is they are not a common carrier but section 230 exemption should only be limited to speech
that would in any other circumstance...be considered legal.
If they want to moderate further as a private service provider than they should not be granted any
exemption.
On 12/9/22 5:25 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 7:28:58 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/8/22 6:50 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Censorship is when the government *requires* you to take down content.
On 12/8/22 12:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
An FBI agent's testimony in a freedom of speech case confirms that >>>>> the bureau ran an operation during the 2020 election that requested >>>>> social media companies remove content as disinformation, suggesting >>>>> the government’s requests succeeded about half of the time and were >>>>> conducted with a "headquarter stamp of approval."
Who said gov't agencies were not involved in censoring free speech? >>>> Requests aren't censorship, especially when they're only honored half >>>> the time.
LoL Who can argue with crazy?
BS...if they ask and it's taken down...the author was censored. Period.That's not censorship.
The FBI asks and Schumer threatens with subpoena.... and Stephen'sYou've connected two things by proximity that aren't connected and the second isn't even true.
twisted opinion is all is well.
On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 8:23:17 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/9/22 5:25 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 7:28:58 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:That's not censorship.
On 12/8/22 6:50 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Censorship is when the government *requires* you to take down content.
On 12/8/22 12:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
An FBI agent's testimony in a freedom of speech case confirms that >>>>>>> the bureau ran an operation during the 2020 election that requested >>>>>>> social media companies remove content as disinformation, suggesting >>>>>>> the government’s requests succeeded about half of the time and were >>>>>>> conducted with a "headquarter stamp of approval."
Who said gov't agencies were not involved in censoring free speech? >>>>>> Requests aren't censorship, especially when they're only honored half >>>>>> the time.
LoL Who can argue with crazy?
BS...if they ask and it's taken down...the author was censored. Period.
You have to right to post your disinformed opinion here...but only because no one is
really listening to you.
The FBI asks and Schumer threatens with subpoena.... and Stephen'sYou've connected two things by proximity that aren't connected and the
twisted opinion is all is well.
second isn't even true.
I've connected two things with common sense. And both are very true.
On 12/10/22 6:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 8:23:17 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/9/22 5:25 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 7:28:58 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/8/22 6:50 PM, ScottW wrote:BS...if they ask and it's taken down...the author was censored. Period. >> That's not censorship.
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote: >>>>>> On 12/8/22 12:14 PM, ScottW wrote:Censorship is when the government *requires* you to take down content. >>>
An FBI agent's testimony in a freedom of speech case confirms that >>>>>>> the bureau ran an operation during the 2020 election that requested >>>>>>> social media companies remove content as disinformation, suggesting >>>>>>> the government’s requests succeeded about half of the time and were
conducted with a "headquarter stamp of approval."
Who said gov't agencies were not involved in censoring free speech? >>>>>> Requests aren't censorship, especially when they're only honored half >>>>>> the time.
LoL Who can argue with crazy?
You have to right to post your disinformed opinion here...but only because no one isWell, you've still got Art.
really listening to you.
The FBI asks and Schumer threatens with subpoena.... and Stephen'sYou've connected two things by proximity that aren't connected and the
twisted opinion is all is well.
second isn't even true.
I've connected two things with common sense. And both are very true.The thing not true is "threatens."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:21:51 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,566 |
| Posted today: | 1 |