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.
any time that your freedom to choose is thrown in doubt, and when anyone tries to hide things and tries to work on your emotions so that truth is not let out free, then do not listen to them.
i.e. obama hollering all that he does - DO THE OPPOSITE.
biden screaming that "they must give me security clearance - if not, the world is coming to an end" - DO THE OPPOSITE.
Does Twitter ban all opposing viewpoints or do they ban unsubstantiated/false news from account holders that have a huge platform contained within the Twitter platform? There's a difference.
Someone upthread already mentioned that The Lincoln Project was blocked for running something unverified/incorrect. That's not an opposing view--that's false information.
Someone also upthread just mentioned that people would not have voted for Joe Biden if they knew all about Hunter Biden. Again, I'm not sure that I personally want to see an unsubstantiated claim about a person being broadcast on the news. When it's proven and verified that it's not a "deep fake", then sure, let it fly. But people only really latch onto the first thing broadcast, true or not, and I do think the media outlets and the purveyors of information need to be careful not to let their platforms be overtaken but unsubstantiated claims and conspiracies. I'm not saying that this information shouldn't be verified--it most certainly should--but it's really wrong to put some of these things out there until we know the truth. The damage is done when it's found later to not be true. No one cares about the correction.
Vetting a news story is a great thing, if its done for both sides. But we know how that works. Any story about Trump from any unknown source was reported as 100% true, while anything about Biden was blocked indefinitely for so called vetting.
If no one cares, why are two commentators talking about it on CNN ? It seems that they care.
They were also going off on Parler on Bill Maher's show last week. The left doesn't like Parler existing in the free market. But conservatives are not free to express themselves on existing platforms run by leftists without running a very real risk of censorship. I guess they are just supposed to take it and fall in line.
Who decides what is "correct"? Any censorship is bad unless they are encouraging violence. People are smart enough to filter through what they want. Of course, we know liberals don't trust the public and think they need to be told what to think.
Regarding the bolded: we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe people are smart enough. Some people are smart enough. Many don't seem to be at all. That's evidenced plainly enough on this site after years of reading people fall for conspiracy theories that are over and over and over again proven false.
Censorship is bad if the truth is being hidden. Censorship is not bad if the "facts" in information being spouted are unverifiable. While I don't always get it, if I pick up a newspaper or a magazine or a journal, I expect that the information presented to me has been vetted and is verifiable as being the truth. I don't expect the Wall Street Journal to start running off with Q'anon "news" headlines. That crap is out there and many "smart" people believe it with their heart and soul.
Security. Much easier to hack someone’s email and request password changes to their accounts on various sites than it is to do the same through a phone number.
Rebekah Mercer, "The Bride of Frankenstein" lookalike, is funding Parler, with some of the billions of her father, Robert Mercer. They are arch-conservatives and backers of an agenda that would shock most liberal and centrist people. They want to hook as many gullible people into joining this evil, social-media rag, as possible.
I remember when the Twitter, NY Post ban, was happening, the response of many liberals here, instead of agreeing with conservatives that the internet should remain a free speech zone, they said to conservatives "If you don't like it, start your own platform."
Well, that is what is happening. Now they are complaining about conservatives taking their advice.
This really should be the end of the thread. For years the mantra from the left was “If you don’t like it, then go create your own site!” So they did, and now the message is “You’re creating an echo chamber, you’re a threat to democracy!”
Sometimes though it's the manner in which they are presented or some presupposed conclusion based on them is passed off as news. Complete with a presupposed headline meant to influence your emotion before you even read the content.
Sometimes it matters what facts are left out too. Cherry picking is common on both sides.
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.
