Again, you know this, how?The FBI DID NOT coerce Facebook.
This is utter right-wing bullshit.
Zuckerberg's so-called donations were never investigated. You claim Zuckerberg is a tool for Trump then dismiss evidence to the contrary.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.
Social media companies are attributed publisher status shielding them from lawsuits based on content. Yet you selectively censor Trump for allegedly posting misinformation.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.
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
You don't seem to understand that "significantly encouraged" is not the same as coerced.
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.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.
Social media companies are attributed publisher status shielding them from lawsuits based on content. Yet you selectively censor Trump for allegedly posting misinformation.
" federal interference with content moderation on social media platforms."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.
Those courts were right-wing. They espoused a right-wing view." 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.
There we go, the hallmark of conspiracists is to conjure up an ever expanding conspiracy to explain away facts which contradict the story.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.
The right wing thinks ASKING people to avoid publishing their lies and bullshit is censorship. It's not.There we go, the hallmark of conspiracists is to conjure up an ever expanding conspiracy to explain away facts which contradict the story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?