Google admits Biden admin pushed them to censor speech on their platform

[dairyair]

Mischaracterizing the shooters motives and blaming the MAGA movement.

That doesn't involve the gov't intervention.
Can you prove there was disinformation?

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

As was proved they did the same on Twitter 1.0 - as well as Facebook's Zuckerburg testified to Congress that the Biden admin pressured them to censor and ban conservative speech, and those that spoke against the "agreed upon Covid messaging"

Here is - ACTUAL CENSORSHIP -

Google to reinstate banned YouTube accounts censored for political speech

YouTube will provide opportunities for creators banned over COVID-19 and election content to rejoin the platform as Google shifts toward supporting free expression.

www.foxnews.com

Biden censured Google In order to keep MAGA bumpkins from killing themselves by believing lies about the Covid vaccine?

Sounds smart to me. Thank you, President Biden.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Speaking of misinformation, what about when the Biden administration officials said that if you got a covid vaccine you wouldn't catch covid or spread it to someone else?

What a lie. Shameful.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That doesn't involve the gov't intervention.
Can you prove there was disinformation?

Kimmel implied the shooter was MAGA, after it was already obvious he was not.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Does it.
How about using the FCC to threaten a companies license? That's more threatening or as you say fascist. Are you ok with that?

specifically FCC companies licenses maybe not ... Biden was involved in the FCC/kids internet access deal though and Biden pressured companies absolutely during covid to target/censorship

see, the Govt does this crap ... when they do it and liberal media agrees its not publicized much ... when they do it and liberal media disagrees its published as the end of the world

 

[RaleBulgarian]

As was proved they did the same on Twitter 1.0 - as well as Facebook's Zuckerburg testified to Congress that the Biden admin pressured them to censor and ban conservative speech, and those that spoke against the "agreed upon Covid messaging"

Here is - ACTUAL CENSORSHIP -

Google to reinstate banned YouTube accounts censored for political speech

YouTube will provide opportunities for creators banned over COVID-19 and election content to rejoin the platform as Google shifts toward supporting free expression.

www.foxnews.com

None of your claims is true.

 

[dairyair]

Kimmel implied the shooter was MAGA, after it was already obvious he was not.

Where is it proven he wasn't MAGA?
He is from UTAH. MAGA is everywhere. He shoots a gun. Liberals can only shoot themselves if they even know what a gun looks like.

And even if he may have implied, how's that not just an opinion.
Why did the gov't have to get involved?
Why are you defending gov't stopping free speech?

Why are you and MAGA against free speech?

 

[dairyair]

specifically FCC companies licenses maybe not ... Biden was involved in the FCC/kids internet access deal though and Biden pressured companies absolutely during covid to target/censorship

see, the Govt does this crap ... when they do it and liberal media agrees its not publicized much ... when they do it and liberal media disagrees its published as the end of the world

So, you are good with gov't stopping free speech.

Pressure is not threatening actions if they don't comply. You are ok with FCC taking livelihoods away from citizens and companies.

That is rather fascist position to take.

 

[coyote505]

Is this how you are going to attempt to distract from the Trump administration attempting to censor people? Let's make this simple: the government should not pressure companies to stifle speech. Now, I am worried far more about those efforts now, than those efforts done years ago by people no longer in power. Your attempts at distraction from the current events are noted and dismissed. We cannot change the past, only work to see that it no longer happens.

We can't change the past, but that is no reason to ignore the fact that the Biden administration lowered the bar for governmental conduct in this area. They've established a well worn path for Trump to follow.

 

[hecatmoggie]

So, you are good with gov't stopping free speech.

Pressure is not threatening actions if they don't comply. You are ok with FCC taking livelihoods away from citizens and companies.

That is rather fascist position to take.

you were ok with Obama targeting conservatives with the IRS and Biden clamping down on freedom of speech .... because you were ok with those things, right ?

 

[dairyair]

you were ok with Obama targeting conservatives with the IRS and Biden clamping down on freedom of speech .... because you were ok with those things, right ?

Unlike you and seems most of MAGA, I never support threats from the gov't to threaten speech.

Why can't you do the same?
It's very telling how you defend trump and FCC to threaten licenses of media companies if they don't give favorable messages.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Biden pressured companies absolutely during covid to target/censorship

You are absolutely lying.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

We can't change the past, but that is no reason to ignore the fact that the Biden administration lowered the bar for governmental conduct in this area. They've established a well worn path for Trump to follow.

You are, at the very least, misinformed,

The Biden administration did not pressure/coerce any social media site to censor speech.

 

[hecatmoggie]

You are absolutely lying.

can you admit you are lying ? this is common knowledge stuff

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to 'censor' some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, "repeatedly pressured" Facebook for months to take down "certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire."

www.pbs.org

Mark Zuckerberg says Biden officials would 'scream' and 'curse' when seeking removal of Facebook content

The Meta CEO said on a podcast that administration officials had asked the company to remove certain posts, including "things that are true."

www.nbcnews.com

Google Admits Censorship Under Biden; Promises to End Bans of YouTube Accounts of Thousands of Americans Censored for Political Speech

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, thanks to the oversight of Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations on topics such as COVID-19 and elections an opportunity to return to the platform.

judiciary.house.gov

c'mon man, I'm calling you every time you try and repeat liberal media lies, that isn't going to fly

 

[CLAX1911]

Unlike you and seems most of MAGA, I never support threats from the gov't to threaten speech.

Why can't you do the same?
It's very telling how you defend trump and FCC to threaten licenses of media companies if they don't give favorable messages.

No such thing happened.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

can you admit you are lying ? this is common knowledge stuff

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to 'censor' some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, "repeatedly pressured" Facebook for months to take down "certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire."

www.pbs.org

Mark Zuckerberg says Biden officials would 'scream' and 'curse' when seeking removal of Facebook content

The Meta CEO said on a podcast that administration officials had asked the company to remove certain posts, including "things that are true."

www.nbcnews.com

Google Admits Censorship Under Biden; Promises to End Bans of YouTube Accounts of Thousands of Americans Censored for Political Speech

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, thanks to the oversight of Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations on topics such as COVID-19 and elections an opportunity to return to the platform.

judiciary.house.gov

c'mon man, I'm calling you every time you try and repeat liberal media lies, that isn't going to fly

Cuckerberg outright lied to the MAGAt run committee because he feared likely retribution from Traitor Trump, who has a long history holding grudges and pursuing revenge for any perceived grievances against others, should the orange ass wipe get back into the White House.

A better source for the truth of the case;
The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of 6-3, the court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their lawsuit.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.

The plaintiffs’ main argument for standing, Barrett observed, is that government officials were responsible for restrictions placed on them by social media platforms in the past, and that the platforms will continue – under pressure from government officials – to censor their speech in the future.

The plaintiffs’ main argument for standing, Barrett observed, is that government officials were responsible for restrictions placed on them by social media platforms in the past, and that the platforms will continue – under pressure from government officials – to censor their speech in the future.

The court of appeals, Barrett noted, “approached standing at a high level of generality” in reaching the conclusion that the plaintiffs had established a sufficient link between the officials’ conduct and the plaintiffs’ injuries. According to the court of appeals, she explained, social-media platforms deplatformed or downgraded the plaintiffs’ posts to avoid retribution from the government if they refused to comply with the government’s wishes. But that is an “overly broad assertion,” Barrett countered, because – even if government officials sometimes influenced content-moderation decisions – “the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct.”

Turning to the plaintiffs’ allegations at a more granular level, Barrett explained that most of those claims generally did not create the kind of connection needed to establish standing. The strongest showing, she continued, came from Jill Hines, a health-care activist who is the co-director of a group that advocated against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and mask mandates. Although Facebook took various actions with regard to social media posts by Hines and her group, including restricting her account after she posted an article about increased rates of myocarditis in teenagers who received the COVID-19 vaccine, Barrett acknowledged, “Facebook was targeting her pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to ‘government-coerced enforcement’ of Facebook’s policies.”

Justices side with Biden over government's influence on social media content moderation​

The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of […]

www.scotusblog.com

As for Jordan, his very well documented history of extreme partisanship and deep ass kissing Traitor Trump invalidates anything he says that isn’t supported by independent, 100% verifiable sources.

 

[CLAX1911]

Cuckerberg outright lied

Got evidence for that or is it just wishful thinking?

to the MAGAt run committee because he feared likely retribution from Traitor Trump, who has a long history holding grudges and pursuing revenge for any perceived grievances against others, should the orange ass wipe get back into the White House.

A better source for the truth of the case;
The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of 6-3, the court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their lawsuit.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.

The plaintiffs’ main argument for standing, Barrett observed, is that government officials were responsible for restrictions placed on them by social media platforms in the past, and that the platforms will continue – under pressure from government officials – to censor their speech in the future.

The plaintiffs’ main argument for standing, Barrett observed, is that government officials were responsible for restrictions placed on them by social media platforms in the past, and that the platforms will continue – under pressure from government officials – to censor their speech in the future.

The court of appeals, Barrett noted, “approached standing at a high level of generality” in reaching the conclusion that the plaintiffs had established a sufficient link between the officials’ conduct and the plaintiffs’ injuries. According to the court of appeals, she explained, social-media platforms deplatformed or downgraded the plaintiffs’ posts to avoid retribution from the government if they refused to comply with the government’s wishes. But that is an “overly broad assertion,” Barrett countered, because – even if government officials sometimes influenced content-moderation decisions – “the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct.”

Turning to the plaintiffs’ allegations at a more granular level, Barrett explained that most of those claims generally did not create the kind of connection needed to establish standing. The strongest showing, she continued, came from Jill Hines, a health-care activist who is the co-director of a group that advocated against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and mask mandates. Although Facebook took various actions with regard to social media posts by Hines and her group, including restricting her account after she posted an article about increased rates of myocarditis in teenagers who received the COVID-19 vaccine, Barrett acknowledged, “Facebook was targeting her pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to ‘government-coerced enforcement’ of Facebook’s policies.”

Justices side with Biden over government's influence on social media content moderation​

Using social media to censer speech is still censorship

The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of […]

www.scotusblog.com

As for Jordan, his very well documented history of extreme partisanship and deep ass kissing Traitor Trump invalidates anything he says that isn’t supported by independent, 100% verifiable sources.

If not supporting censorship is deep ass kissing I want all politicians forced to do that.

 

[Michael Cole]

How do you like Northern Nevada this time of year?

It's wonderful. The avatar was taken at Spooner two weeks ago.

You are severely confused. Time warp level shit. Better luck.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Got evidence for that or is it just wishful thinking?

The evidence is in SCOTUS’ decision.

Associate Justice Coney Barrett, writing for the majority in Murthy v. Missouri; the plaintiffs “without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

What actual, verifiable evidence of any Biden administration officials pressuring Facebook to censor did/has Cuckerberg provided?

Using social media to censer speech is still censorship

Social media platform owners/operators censor content posted by users every single day. That is their legal right.

If not supporting censorship is deep ass kissing I want all politicians forced to do that.

Jordan will support, with the utmost enthusiasm, anything at all that his fat orange jesus commands of him.

 

[CLAX1911]

The evidence is in SCOTUS’ decision.

The decision didn't indicate that Zuckerberg was lying. If anything it suggests he's telling the truth

Associate Justice Coney Barrett, writing for the majority in Murthy v. Missouri; the plaintiffs “without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

What actual, verifiable evidence of any Biden administration officials pressuring Facebook to censor did/has Cuckerberg provided?

The actual censorship of things that would look bad for the Biden administration.

Social media platform owners/operators censor content posted by users every single day. That is their legal right.

But they shouldn't be strong armed by crooked political organizations

Jordan will support, with the utmost enthusiasm, anything at all that his fat orange jesus commands of him.

Good. We all know there was censorship.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The decision didn't indicate that Zuckerberg was lying.

There was no concrete proof that anyone from the Biden administration pressured anyone at Facebook to censor.

By default, it means Cuckerberg lied.

Again, what actual, verifiable evidence of any Biden administration officials pressuring Facebook to censor did/has Cuckerberg provided?

If anything it suggests he's telling the truth

Only on Bizarro World.

The actual censorship of things that would look bad for the Biden administration.

Didn’t happen so, moot point.

But they shouldn't be strong armed by crooked political organizations

Goes without saying.

Good. We all know there was censorship.

How in the world does your response above relate to my below comment???

Jordan will support, with the utmost enthusiasm, anything at all that his fat orange jesus commands of him.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Where is it proven he wasn't MAGA?
He is from UTAH. MAGA is everywhere. He shoots a gun. Liberals can only shoot themselves if they even know what a gun looks like.

And even if he may have implied, how's that not just an opinion.
Why did the gov't have to get involved?
Why are you defending gov't stopping free speech?

Why are you and MAGA against free speech?

Such a bunch of phony horseshit. How about people that actually got shadow banned from social media? How about the NYPost? Kimmel lied. Just to be an inflammatory little shit like he always is. If a comedian doesn't want the consequences for shitty, offensive, phony speech which happens to be very political and one sided, maybe he should stick with comedy and shut his cake hole. You act like a multi-millionaire somehow doesn't have free speech when people were being deplatformed from society.

MSN

Wake the **** up.

 

[CLAX1911]

There was no concrete proof that anyone from the Biden administration pressured anyone at Facebook to censor.

I'm not sure Zuckerberg cared so much about Joe Biden to help lie To The world about it.

By default, it means Cuckerberg lied.

You have to have proof of that.

Again, what actual, verifiable evidence of any Biden administration officials pressuring Facebook to censor did/has Cuckerberg provided?

The censorship itself. All too help out Biden's image.

Only on Bizarro World.

Didn’t happen so, moot point.

Goes without saying.

How in the world does your response above relate to my below comment???

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm not sure Zuckerberg cared so much about Joe Biden to help lie To The world about it.

You aren’t paying attention. Cuckerberg lied in order to avoid Traitor Trump’s wrath.

You have to have proof of that.

The proof is in SCOTUS’ decision.

Cuckerberg is the one who did not provide any evidence that he was pressured.

The censorship itself. All too help out Biden's image.

Your claims are progressively getting more ludicrous.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Depends on what you call 'progress', I guess.


That's pretty obvious, as they are all too old, just by the math.

Progress!

Their beliefs and experiences were dated. They were elected for like 35 years... and it ends soon. No one liked their leadership, and now people who were raised by parents who wanted all races to be allowed to use water fountains will begin to lead the country.

It's great.