Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody colluded. He's a horrid man who says and does horrid things and who kept violating the TOS on multiple sites. I am guessing one site saw him get banned and the others, sick of him and his bullcrap, followed suit because they'd been considering it already.
This was a collaborated plan....
There is no denying it now.
The plan was enforced in a collaborative effort.
That is an Anti-Trust violation.
All the way back to 2016, it was determined that the conservative voices need to be silenced in a collective effort from the power of the internet.
Quote:
One must also acknowledge that social media platforms are incredibly efficient enablers of the individual right to freedom of expression.
These proposals are certainly worthy of consideration, but times of uncertainty require caution: any attempt to deal with the influence of social media on the distribution of information and on public debates should be approached as a learning process for all parties involved. As discussed in our previous blog, this learning process is essential for democratic societies. As a collective experience, these initiatives should be open, participatory and transparent. All stakeholders – media companies, journalists, civil society, academia, and social media giants – should collaborate on projects to build a better understanding of how to address the impact of social media giants on civic space, media pluralism and the diversity of content. Discussions must also focus on the development of appropriate remedies, including solutions to flawed algorithmic processes, to help audiences to spot possible misinformation and ensure users’ exposure to a real diversity of opinions and ideas.
When people cannot distinguish between a bookstore refusing to carry a copy of a particular book on its shelves and Nazis collecting every copy of the book available everywhere and burning it in effigy, you know they are beyond help.
Here is a big lesson from Tech Check, a segment on 92.3 KTAR's (Phoenix News Radio) morning news from about 7:18 AM today. Free Speech ONLY applies to the government intervening. Private companies are not subject to denying someone's right to free speech. A man can get censored, banned or permabanned without prejudice for breaking TOS whether it is hates peech, lies or defamatory material. Even trolling, flaming and ever-baiting.
Where does it say, Congress cannot expand free speech?
The internet is involved in interstate & global commerce. Guess what congress does have the power to do.
Take a wild guess.
There’s going to be a congressional hearing. Yes it’s a private business but Facebook is public ally shared and people own stocks in it. It is also a monopoly and by the way another pod cast was taken down just for mentioning Alex Jones
This is where it gets interesting. People cannot even have guest speakers on their programs, or be silenced. They are digging themselves a deeper hole, trying to overturn, NYT v. Sullivan.
Where does it say, Congress cannot expand free speech?
The internet is involved in interstate & global commerce. Guess what congress does have the power to do.
Take a wild guess.
Add more government regulations and control of businesses, making it strange that conservatives would want this?
But here is the thing, if this is the case it would entirely lead to companies wouldn't be able to fire people due to use of freedom of expression, ie: football kneeling.
Physical Actions of an individual, are much different than spoken or printed words, when talking about the 1st amendment.
This is where it gets interesting. People cannot even have guest speakers on their programs, or be silenced. They are digging themselves a deeper hole, trying to overturn, NYT v. Sullivan.
So lay it out...how do you see NYT vs. Sullivan meaning that YouTube shouldn't be able to ban Alex Jones?
Add more government regulations and control of businesses, making it strange that conservatives would want this?
It is actually part of the Federal Governments original job description, before we became governed by fascist.
Expanding and securing the peoples rights.... Not taking them.
Then they got freaky during the 60's and determined all business in the USA, is/are controlled by the federal government, to give a segment of society special privilege. They did it then, they can do it now, with a key word as the mechanism.
The 16th amendment created the Fascism you love today.
Get rid of the 16th amendment and all this mess goes away instantly.
What if Congress passed a law that said business in the USA cannot restrict, deny, or retract, any persons freedom to speak?
Nothing denies them they can't.
Government regulations to protect the peoples right, is not deniable to Congress. It is their JOB!
That is the reason for Communication laws. To secure free speech.
Last edited by BentBow; 08-12-2018 at 09:07 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
