'Turned out the lights': Fury hits Washington Post as it refuses to run $115K anti-Musk ad

[AZRWinger]

The FBI DID NOT coerce Facebook.

This is utter right-wing bullshit.

Again, you know this, how?

Yeah, this is bad, scum like Zuck need to be stopped from interfering in elections. This has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Zuckerberg's so-called donations were never investigated. You claim Zuckerberg is a tool for Trump then dismiss evidence to the contrary.

You seem to forget that those companies are entitled to moderate themselves. Trump was told REPEATEDLY to stop posting misinformation and did not do so. He was banned as a result of his failure to comply with the rules of the board. This is PEFRFECTLY LEGAL and is NOT CENSORSHIP.

More baseless babbling bullshit.

Social media companies are attributed publisher status shielding them from lawsuits based on content. Yet you selectively censor Trump for allegedly posting misinformation.

 

[bubbabgone]

I have already addressed this.

Zuck is a cuck. He's always been a Trump ball-juggler. Naturally, he is going to attack the Biden administration for asking him to avoid posting lies and misinformation spread by the right that stupid people would think are true but are not.

There was no "PRESSURING" going on. That is bullshit Zuck spread.

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld key parts of a preliminary injunction against federal interference with content moderation on social media platforms. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit unanimously agreed that the White House, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the FBI had "coerced" or "significantly encouraged" the platforms, "in violation of the First Amendment," to suppress speech that federal officials viewed as dangerously inaccurate or misleading. But the 5th Circuit also said the injunction that U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty issued in July was excessively broad and covered too many agencies.

The 5th Circuit agrees that federal officials unconstitutionally 'coerced' or 'encouraged' online censorship

The appeals court narrowed a preliminary injunction against such meddling but confirmed the threat that it poses to freedom of speech.

reason.com

A federal appeals court on Friday limited the scope of a district court ruling that restricted communications between government agencies and social media companies, while also finding that several agencies likely violated the First Amendment.

FBI and White House likely coerced social media platforms into removing posts, appeals court rules

But the appeals court limited the scope of a district court ruling that restricted communications between government agencies and social media companies.

www.cnbc.com

 

[ColdHardTruth]

View attachment 67559675

You don't seem to understand that "significantly encouraged" is not the same as coerced.

They asked social media to avoid posting lies and stupidity that may cause harm to others. Many of those posts were created SPECIFICALLY to cause harm.

 

[Helix]

I'll avoid Bezos shit other than Amazon. It's too inconvenient to avoid something that ubiquitous. I've been off of the Washington Post since its paywall annoyed me. I did used to really enjoy the article comments there and at The Hill, but those seem to be going the way of the dinosaur. I wouldn't be especially surprised if message boards eventually follow suit. I'd be sad about that one, though.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Again, you know this, how?

Zuckerberg's so-called donations were never investigated. You claim Zuckerberg is a tool for Trump then dismiss evidence to the contrary.

Zuck the cuck paid Trump $25 million dollars because Trump was mad about being banned. This IS NOT A COICIDENCE. This is evidence of collusion and corruption. In simple terms, IT WAS A BRIBE designed to curry favor.

Meta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension

Meta has agreed to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the company after it suspended his accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

apnews.com

Social media companies are attributed publisher status shielding them from lawsuits based on content. Yet you selectively censor Trump for allegedly posting misinformation.

There was no "ALLEGEDLY". Trump REPEATEDLY posted lies and misinformation. That is what got him banned. IT WAS NOT CENSORSHIP. Spare us the right-wing bullshit.

Facebook said Mr Trump's actions were "a severe violation of our rules".


Facebook's move comes as the social media giant is also ending a policy shielding politicians from some content moderation rules.

It said that it would no longer give politicians immunity for deceptive or abusive content based on their comments being newsworthy.

Facebook suspends Trump accounts for two years

Former US President Donald Trump called the platform's decree "abuse" and "an insult" to his voters.

www.bbc.com

Please cease the juggling of orange balls.

 

[bubbabgone]

You don't seem to understand that "significantly encouraged" is not the same as coerced.

They asked social media to avoid posting lies and stupidity that may cause harm to others. Many of those posts were created SPECIFICALLY to cause harm.

" federal interference with content moderation on social media platforms."
"several agencies likely violated the First Amendment."

Aren't you aware that whenever you're confronted with evidence like Court decisions that contradict your claims you resort to substance-free denials?
Everyone else can see it and we are all aware of it.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

" federal interference with content moderation on social media platforms."
"several agencies likely violated the First Amendment."

Aren't you aware that whenever you're confronted with evidence like Court decisions that contradict your claims you resort to substance-free denials?
Everyone else can see it and we are all aware of it.

Those courts were right-wing. They espoused a right-wing view.

The term is "likely" which they used because they could not prove, in any tangible way, that censorship occurred.

There WAS NO CENSORSHIP.

 

[AZRWinger]

Those courts were right-wing. They espoused a right-wing view.

The term is "likely" which they used because they could not prove, in any tangible way, that censorship occurred.

There WAS NO CENSORSHIP.

There we go, the hallmark of conspiracists is to conjure up an ever expanding conspiracy to explain away facts which contradict the story.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

There we go, the hallmark of conspiracists is to conjure up an ever expanding conspiracy to explain away facts which contradict the story.

The right wing thinks ASKING people to avoid publishing their lies and bullshit is censorship. It's not.