Is this ok with you?

[JasperL]

LOL But bullshit stories based on stolen tax returns are fine. You guys are a hoot.

You ignored the point. No one is being censored.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

So if conservatives get their way (they won't by the way) does this mean anything I post at DP cannot be censored or infracted? Because you know, there are some choice words I'd like to have with some mods and users that currently break the TOS of a private website.

Scroll to the bottom of the homepage. That is where the forum rules are located.

Failure to follow the rules sometimes results in user thread bans, meaning someone can't post in it anymore.

 

[skeptic llc]

Remember when Rs used to hate Murphy Brown and try to get censorship working in their direction? So confusing ... what is their current position on what companies in a free market are allowed to do?

 

[roguenuke]

Here's the thing, prior to the Internet, to these social media sites, how many people would have seen this story? How many would have believed it? It would have been in magazines in the checkout stand, since it could not be validated by real media. At most, it may have ran on Fox News. Why? Because it isn't more than a tabloid story. It doesn't deserve legitimacy without some way to check its authenticity. Would you be upset that other media outlets weren't covering it, despite it being in a paper that is classified as a tabloid?

New York Post - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These social media sites are private businesses. They are not creating news. But they have a right to block anything, any content that does not fit their TOS, their expectations. Notice how no one complains when they remove pictures of naked people from feeds. No one complains that that is censoring content (it is, just the same as removing news stories).

 

[roguenuke]

Here's the thing, prior to the Internet, to these social media sites, how many people would have seen this story? How many would have believed it? It would have been in magazines in the checkout stand, since it could not be validated by real media. At most, it may have ran on Fox News. Why? Because it isn't more than a tabloid story. It doesn't deserve legitimacy without some way to check its authenticity. Would you be upset that other media outlets weren't covering it, despite it being in a paper that is classified as a tabloid?

New York Post - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These social media sites are private businesses. They are not creating news. But they have a right to block anything, any content that does not fit their TOS, their expectations. Notice how no one complains when they remove pictures of naked people from feeds. No one complains that that is censoring content (it is, just the same as removing news stories).

In fact, would stores that carry magazines, but refuse to carry certain magazines be considered publishers too, since they are limiting what content you are allowed to purchase, allowed to see from them? Would book stores be considered under the same title?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I have seen no evidence that Trump is capable of work. Any past incident where he engaged in actual labor or put forth sustained effort to accomplish or learn something?

C'mon, man! I distinctly remember seeing Trump tossing rolls of paper towels at hurricane flood victims. If that's not actual labor what is it?

 

[tres borrachos]

Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?

How does social media interfere with my freedom? I have the right not to read social media.

 

[HIP56948]

In this day and age, one has to do a lot of research to ascertain a reasonable substance of truth. It can certainly be a royal pain-in-the-ass. I read the Biden story but when I found out that the computer that had the "Goods" on Biden was taken to a computer-repair shop and then was not picked up and THEN the dude that brought it in called up the shop and asked for the hard drive files to be indexed and such, I thought: "Con-Job city..here we come" There's more to the story but essentially, it reeks of total Bullsh!t...

 

[Rawley]

You ignored the point. No one is being censored.

BUllshit. If you tried to link to the story, they shut down your account. Most people woud consider shutting down you account being censored, but evidently not in the Kool-Aid crowd.

 

[madman]

Scroll to the bottom of the homepage. That is where the forum rules are located.

Failure to follow the rules sometimes results in user thread bans, meaning someone can't post in it anymore.

exactly!

my god! that is outragous, I dont have me freedumb of spek!

 

[Rawley]

Remember when Rs used to hate Murphy Brown and try to get censorship working in their direction? So confusing ... what is their current position on what companies in a free market are allowed to do?

HUH? Who tried to censor Murphy Brown?

 

[joko104]

I'm am totally fine with private companies like Twitter and Facebook enforcing their own terms of service and exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association by obstructing a joint foreign and Trumpian disinformation campaign. Totally, 1000% fine with that.

Worship of the richest people on earth is a requirement of the Democratic Party. Every good fascist advocates for book burning and censorship.

 

[Luce]

Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?

So, wait. Companies now cannot decide what content they carry/deliver?

Asking for a Gay person wanting to buy a wedding cake.

 

[Rawley]

Worship of the richest people on earth is a requirement of the Democratic Party. Every good fascist advocates for book burning and censorship.

Remember the days when the Democrats used to support free speech? How far have they fallen.

 

[OlNate]

Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?

Despite the excessive use of crazy formatting, I agree, there should be a censorship free social media venue. What I don't get is why you expect private corporations to provide that to you free of charge. They don't owe you anything, nor must you use their services.

If this is what you want, then I would suggest lobbying your government to provide you with a social media venue where free speech reigns. Be ready to pay for it with your tax dollars. If enough people agree with you, then it shall come to pass. If that doesn't work, get the funds together yourself. This is probably a better use of your time than suggesting that you're entitled to anything from a private corporation under your current system.

 

[Rawley]

Despite the excessive use of crazy formatting, I agree, there should be a censorship free social media venue. What I don't get is why you expect private corporations to provide that to you free of charge. They don't owe you anything, nor must you use their services.

If this is what you want, then I would suggest lobbying your government to provide you with a social media venue where free speech reigns. Be ready to pay for it with your tax dollars. If enough people agree with you, then it shall come to pass. If that doesn't work, get the funds together yourself. This is probably a better use of your time than suggesting that you're entitled to anything from a private corporation under your current system.

WE do pay for it. They have been given exemptions from our antitrust laws. THey just ****ed themselves.

 

[OlNate]

WE do pay for it. They have been given exemptions from our antitrust laws. THey just ****ed themselves.

lol...and those exemptions cost you how much, exactly?

Try again.

 

[Rawley]

lol...and those exemptions cost you how much, exactly?

Try again.

LOL SO monopolies don't cost consumers anything? Canada doesn't have antitrust laws? You funny

 

[JasperL]

BUllshit. If you tried to link to the story, they shut down your account. Most people woud consider shutting down you account being censored, but evidently not in the Kool-Aid crowd.

I covered this, you ignored it. If you want to address my argument, you can or not.

"Who is being censored? I've checked today and the NYP story is still up and they're publishing more of them. I bet you can get there with your mad google skills in about 10 seconds or less. People can discuss the story, they just cannot link to it, but can find it like you can. That's not censorship, it's private companies deciding not to allow the spreading of bullshit stories based on stolen emails. Should private companies be REQUIRED by Big Government to publish everything?"

 

[OlNate]

LOL SO monopolies don't cost consumers anything? Canada doesn't have antitrust laws? You funny

LOL SO your point fell flat on it's ass, and you double down with further deflection? Totally separate issue. Also:

Appeals court rejects claims that Facebook, Twitter suppress conservative views

A federal appeals court is rejecting claims that tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple have conspired to suppress conservative viewpoints on their platforms.A three-judge panel of…

thehill.com

You funny

Try again.

 

[JasperL]

Remember the days when the Democrats used to support free speech? How far have they fallen.

This isn't about "free speech." You're on a forum with RULES and if you break them the mods have a history of thread bans, suspensions, and permanent ban hammers. That's what private companies can do on their own platforms. Do you think DP ought to allow porn? Open racism? Trolls? People hawking scams? If someone comes into your kitchen and calls a wife or daughter a C word, must they be allowed to stay in your house? No? Why do you hate free speech?

 

[Rawley]

I covered this, you ignored it. If you want to address my argument, you can or not.

"Who is being censored? I've checked today and the NYP story is still up and they're publishing more of them. I bet you can get there with your mad google skills in about 10 seconds or less. People can discuss the story, they just cannot link to it, but can find it like you can. That's not censorship, it's private companies deciding not to allow the spreading of bullshit stories based on stolen emails. Should private companies be REQUIRED by Big Government to publish everything?"

What's with the "publish everything" strawman? THe issue is censorship. Under your theory Facebook could refuse all advertisements from the Trump campaign, but allow the same from the Biden campaign. Everyone could see the Trump advertisements on some other platform, right?

 

[Rawley]

LOL SO your point fell flat on it's ass, and you double down with further deflection? Totally separate issue. Also:

Appeals court rejects claims that Facebook, Twitter suppress conservative views

A federal appeals court is rejecting claims that tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple have conspired to suppress conservative viewpoints on their platforms.A three-judge panel of…

thehill.com

You funny

Try again.

You should do a little homework on antitrust.

 

[OlNate]

You should do a little homework on antitrust.

....just like I thought.

No need to try again, you seem spent.

 

[roguenuke]

What's with the "publish everything" strawman? THe issue is censorship. Under your theory Facebook could refuse all advertisements from the Trump campaign, but allow the same from the Biden campaign. Everyone could see the Trump advertisements on some other platform, right?

Do stores have to carry every magazine, sell every brand, even if they only don't carry those due to political or personal opinions? If not, is that censorship? Should they be forced to carry those other brands, brands that they don't approve of the leadership, the politics, the stories that perhaps those magazines put out?