Wish I Was in the Land of Facebook

@spruce112358 said
Those are private platforms that can publish what they wish. Jay should take it up with them. 😆

@sh76 said
When the government uses its power to threaten social media platforms into suppressing speech that would otherwise be protected by the First
Amendment, that's a First Amendment violation.

@sh76 said
The Guardian (which is not just liberal - it's hyper-liberal) is naturally going to amplify any data point that fits it's narrative, and any one particular study done by people in Berkeley and Cambridge is hardly reliable as an end-all.

But regardless of whether that's true in the broader sense, it is a fact that government agencies browbeat social media to toe the PC Orthodo ...[text shortened]... I am 100% sure that anyone who claims these things never happened is either ignorant or gaslighting.

And yet ultimately, evidence of systematic political bias in Twitter’s enforcement of its rules remains sketchy at best, and the Twitter Files did not change that

@spruce112358 said
No. The government is enjoined to "promote the general welfare." 😆

So if it thinks your posts represent harm to the general welfare, they can so state - MUST so state. They can threaten you. They can bluff you. They can say "You better or we'll... we'll...!" They can curse you out for a fool.

But they can't stop you from saying whatever you want. The Constitution is very clear on that point. 😆

@sh76 said
When the government uses its power to threaten social media platforms into suppressing speech that would otherwise be protected by the First
Amendment, that's a First Amendment violation.

@sh76 said
This wasn't fact checking. It was demonetization, shadow banning and hiding content from people's feeds. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter all engaged in these practices at government instigation.

Perfectly respectable and highly professional people like Jay Battacharya had their accounts suppressed drastically merely because they didn't toe the line of the
liberal Orthodoxy. ...[text shortened]... ryone by claiming it was merely fact checking is not going to work. We were there. We saw it happen.

@no1marauder said
What entitles people who continually post false content to the perks afforded by a private organization? A free one at that.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
I guess you missed the part where zuckerburg stated they were forced to remove true content

@no1marauder said
No one forced him to do anything.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
yes they were...demanding actions by someone that holds power over your company is force.

why are you libs so against American values, laws and the constitution.

even govt asking is unconstitutional

@sh76 said
When the government uses its power to threaten social media platforms into suppressing speech that would otherwise be protected by the First
Amendment, that's a First Amendment violation.

When asked if he believed Zuckerberg made the changes in response to threats the incoming president has made, Trump responded: “Probably.”

"Government officials have the same right to speech as anybody else. '

show where anyone claimed that shytweasel

govt officials demanded free speech that was truthful be taken down

twist some more, you look foolish

@wildgrass said
You're on the wrong side of this if you oppose government involvement. The refrain of "No more fact checkers" is coming from the incoming trump administration.

Fact checkers are people too.

When asked if he believed Zuckerberg made the changes in response to threats the incoming president has made, Trump responded: “Probably.”

https://apnews.com/article/meta-facts-trump-musk-community-notes-413b8495939a058ff2d25fd23f2e0f43

@Mott-The-Hoople said
LOL...a DEFINITE ...probably LOL

@wildgrass said
You quickly forget the multiple times trump publicly threatened Zuckerberg with life in prison?

Is it just a coincidence that Zuckerberg deplatforms the fact checkers right before trump takes over?