|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> It's not censorship if it's necessary to protect /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1729234028 Message started by JOG on 10/17/24 at 23:47:08 |
|
Title: It's not censorship if it's necessary to protect Post by JOG on 10/17/24 at 23:47:08 Ahhr Dmokrucee.. https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1846675214370836905 |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by MnSpring on 10/18/24 at 08:57:45 “…necessary to protect…” The title lead me to believe it was about Area 51, Cuban Missile Crises, (which was so close to a Nuclear contest), Firing codes for our Nuks, etc. But is about CENSORSHIP, to make people think a DFI Cackling hen and a Power hungry bully, are good for this Nation. It is ANOTHER exposed example of how/who/when it is done. Which the FDS, WOKE, DFI, Socialists will Bury ! (With the help of 3/4 of the big media) |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by JOG on 10/19/24 at 20:44:37 Can't be talking trash! Boom! https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1846675214370836905 |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/20/24 at 00:54:56 Yeah how dare private companies be able to decide what they allow on their property. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by JOG on 10/20/24 at 01:13:36 Such Bullschitt. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by thumperclone on 10/20/24 at 02:15:31 this forum has a form of censorship I don't see any bichin about that |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Serowbot on 10/20/24 at 06:43:45 Oh don't get them started :-X |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by MnSpring on 10/20/24 at 06:59:44 6747454D5047220 wrote:
Another great deflection. That, has nothing to do with what a person can do with/on their own property. It is about the Lying, and covering up, about what is being done, saying one thing and doing another. But hey, today, the UL, FDS WOKE are teaching the young, The BEST LIER, gets rewarded ! |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Serowbot on 10/20/24 at 07:09:47 4764597A7863646D0A0 wrote:
You're counting on that right? |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by thumperclone on 10/20/24 at 08:47:46 6771667B63767B60140 wrote:
I rattled the cage :D |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/20/24 at 11:51:49 Another great deflection. That, has nothing to do with what a person can do with/on their own property. It is about the Lying, and covering up, about what is being done, saying one thing and doing another. What I saw was information about a private company removing content from their privately owned service. Truth Social does this, should the same outrage apply? But hey, today, the UL, FDS WOKE are teaching the young, The BEST LIER, gets rewarded ! I wonder if they will at least be taught how to spell Liar when it's appropriate, you know, with the dumbing down of the education system and all. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by JOG on 10/20/24 at 18:09:11 Sounds like a pinball game,,deflection on top of deflection.. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by WebsterMark on 10/21/24 at 05:14:10 Isn’t the issue that news organizations enjoy certain legal protections given their existence is necessary and as such, purposely publishing edited content for the sole purpose of promoting a candidate as opposed to editing for content such as length while purposely giving the impression the content has not been edited? The allegations is CBS edited a Harris answer to make her look more competent. If that’s true, they deserved to be called out. Of course that opens the door to the fact the majority of the news media was purposely complicit in the false RussianGate which they knew was false but kept promoting it as real and Biden laptop story in which they downplayed for the sole purpose of helping tp defeat Trump. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/21/24 at 05:49:48 Isn’t the issue that news organizations enjoy certain legal protections given their existence is necessary and as such, purposely publishing edited content for the sole purpose of promoting a candidate as opposed to editing for content such as length while purposely giving the impression the content has not been edited? The allegations is CBS edited a Harris answer to make her look more competent. If that’s true, they deserved to be called out. I agree here. While plenty of people online manipulate answers to questions etc. to alter an interview, it is different for organizations like CBS, on paper. Facebook on the other hand has never been considered a credible news organization. It gets it's legal protections from a different set of laws intended for totally different reasons. They have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, and you have no right to use their property. Don't like what they do with it? Stop using it. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/21/24 at 05:53:36 Sounds like a pinball game,,deflection on top of deflection.. And what does this sound like? "Such Bullschitt." Doesn't sound like someone interested in discussion or able to define their position to me. That is my opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is. The interview is about a "Senior Meta Engineer" - why would anyone expect Meta/Facebook to protect your 1st Amendment rights and not just do whatever they want with their own property that you choose to use? Where does that expectation come from? |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Serowbot on 10/21/24 at 07:31:05 The complaint you quote about "X" is posted on "X" What does that tell you? ...and it's owned by Elon Musk Trump biggest backer |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by JOG on 10/22/24 at 07:40:31 The engineer who is making the claim works for Meta. The claim is posted on X. Zuck owns Meta. So, what is your point? I'm thinking you didn't hit the 10 ring. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Serowbot on 10/22/24 at 08:16:41 sorry, I misread I get those guys confused |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by thumperclone on 10/22/24 at 08:30:44 orange FELON wants to strip broadcaster's license's now that's CENSORSHIP! |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by JOG on 10/22/24 at 11:21:36 No. That is what happens when someone violates the rules. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/22/24 at 11:34:43 I'm wondering where the expectation that Meta would not act in their best interest and control what they allow on their property comes from. Why is any of this surprising, and why is it wrong? This is an example of a private business choosing what they allow on their property. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by thumperclone on 10/22/24 at 12:46:13 6451425A4146425147230 wrote:
total bull!! no such rules exist except in the orange FELON'S warped brain anyone who he disagrees with or disagrees with him is subject to his wrath period |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Serowbot on 10/22/24 at 16:09:48 Rules were violated... so says the orange fellow with 34 felony convictions :-? |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by JOG on 10/22/24 at 17:40:14 382E39243C29243F4B0 wrote:
I get it. You still don't see how Trump has been the victim of absolute Boss Hogg lawfare? I'm betting you would be able to if it was going against Your Side. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by JOG on 10/22/24 at 17:41:12 5B7B79716C7B1E0 wrote:
Dude,,just stoppit. You're embarrassing yourself. Zuck Apologized for Bowing to PRESSURE from the government to censor. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by MnSpring on 10/22/24 at 19:46:39 022220283522470 wrote:
Because the entity said that is NOT How IT IS DONE YET it WAS. It is the SAME as a Gas station saying they have 90 octane gas at 4.00 gal. (when everyone else has 90 octane at 4.50 a gal gas). YET is actually selling 80 octane gas. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/23/24 at 05:14:15 Dude,,just stoppit. You're embarrassing yourself. Zuck Apologized for Bowing to PRESSURE from the government to censor. Yes. But they are allowed to do that. FB/Meta did nothing illegal. The US Government on the other hand is over-stepping. This is my opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is. Any business can make a completely legal business decision, using heir own privately owned property, and later decide that decision was not appropriate. None of that gives You a right to their property use, or given them a responsibility to protect your Constitutional rights - so there should be no expectation that FB/Meta would not respond to Government requests. This whole idea that FB/Meta was doing anything wrong, AND that humans using the service should not have their content removed is targeting the wrong service. FB/Meta have no responsibility to protect your 1st Amendment rights, they can remove your content from their property for any reason and lie to you about why. Or more accurately, just not tell you why. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/23/24 at 05:28:09 Because the entity said that is NOT How IT IS DONE YET it WAS. So FB/Meta "said" they do not moderate content? Specifically Zuckerberg was talking about Covid 19, and FB actually made public statement that they are not moderating that content? The FB/Meta entity said that is NOT How IT IS DONE? OR did they just omit/not disclose they are doing it due to Government pressure? My opinion based off the objective truth of documented FB/Meta statements is they never claimed zero content moderation is How IT IS DONE. It is the SAME as a Gas station saying they have 90 octane gas at 4.00 gal. (when everyone else has 90 octane at 4.50 a gal gas). YET is actually selling 80 octane gas. I disagree with your opinion. First, you are paying for gas. You are not paying for FB/Meta comments. Second there consumer protection laws in regard to lying about product content, and multiple fuel sales regulations. FB/Meta have no such legal responsibilities, and they aren't claiming any human can post anything they want, then removing the content - they are clear they own the platform and can/will delete content. Again, they are very clear they can and will, and do remove content from their property. Your example is bait and switch which would require FB/Meta to say they do NOT remove or regulate content. A better example in my opinion, for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is, would be saying a gas station sells gas with no tax (Government regulation/influence) when they actually do. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by MnSpring on 10/23/24 at 08:29:27 4666646C7166030 wrote:
It was IMPLIED. (just like a poster here constantly 'imply's' that something is the Truth, when it is a opinion) 4666646C7166030 wrote:
They totally Lied ! Just like CBS totally, completely, and without any regard to the LAW, violated. And now, disavowing any responsibility for their actions. (Apparently, some UL, WOKE, DFI, SOCIALISTIC ENTITY'S, believe they are ABOVE the law/s, rules, that governs their industry) |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/23/24 at 11:25:44 It was IMPLIED. (just like a poster here constantly 'imply's' that something is the Truth, when it is a opinion) That's your opinion. My opinion is they never implied they allow all content to be placed on their platform. I see them constantly say they will moderate and remove content from their property. They literally say they WILL remove content. They totally Lied ! Just like CBS totally, completely, and without any regard to the LAW, violated. And now, disavowing any responsibility for their actions. Incorrect, FB/Meta does not have the same legal obligations as CBS. This here is another example of the problem - thinking FB/Meta is violating laws that broadcast television have to follow. They aren't. They have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, they can do what they want with their own property in regards to what they allow to be posted. FB/Meta have never "said" or LIED! that they are not removing content. They specifically say they DO remove content. They said they were "fighting misinformation" the entire time. Just because you don't like what they did doesn't make it illegal. Zuckerberg doesn't like what he did - but that does not make it illegal. But I get it, one has to make it sound worse so they can claim their opinion is fact and say FB/Meta violated the LAW. Billy broke a window, and Bobby hangs out with Billy so Bobby also broke a window. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/24 at 03:05:01 6A4A48405D4A2F0 wrote:
I’m not sure that’s correct. Or rather, I should say I’m not sure that would be legally upheld upon review by courts, in particular, higher courts further up the line. I haven’t done any research and haven’t read anything on this topic but I feel like situations where rulings based on the broadly defined “common law” could come into play. I would think that courts could decide that because Facebook is so widely used by “credible news organizations“ to disseminate information and in fact used by the government to get public service announcements out, it wouldn’t surprise me if a court ruled that they are in fact, a news organizations, at least in situations where they are “reporting” something with national interest, such as an election. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/24/24 at 07:37:23 I haven’t done any research and haven’t read anything on this topic but I feel like situations where rulings based on the broadly defined “common law” could come into play. I would think that courts could decide that because Facebook is so widely used by “credible news organizations“ to disseminate information and in fact used by the government to get public service announcements out, it wouldn’t surprise me if a court ruled that they are in fact, a news organizations, at least in situations where they are “reporting” something with national interest, such as an election. I can see future interpretations being as such as well. But the claim is FB/Meta is breaking the LAW now, and specifically the same ones CBS is. This is not true, FB/Meta does not need to follow FCC laws for instance. No amount of future maybes will make that true today. Humans are combining FB/Meta cooperation with the Government specifically in relation to removing content from their private property, with CBS misrepresenting Harris. That's nothing more than grasping at straws. Those two events have no legal nexus. FB/Meta can remove your content from their private property and that is completely legal - nothing CBS does changes this. This is my opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by JOG on 10/24/24 at 07:46:06 I don't GAF about LAW. Censorship is Wrong. The whole idea of Social Media is an open forum,where ideas get pushed,shoved,promoted, argued against, inspected, autopsied, but Not Censored, or it's Not An open forum. |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Serowbot on 10/24/24 at 08:09:21 Trump won't release medical records, education information, income information, taxes, has NDA's for almost all employees |
|
Title: Re: It's not censorship if it's necessary to prote Post by Eegore on 10/24/24 at 10:32:34 I don't GAF about LAW. Censorship is Wrong. The whole idea of Social Media is an open forum,where ideas get pushed,shoved,promoted, argued against, inspected, autopsied, but Not Censored, or it's Not An open forum. I disagree. I think when a business specifically says they moderate their property - they are literally telling you they will be in control of what they allow on their property. We can call it an Open forum, but that idea essentially only exists in Public forums and even those are moderated. Why would we have any expectation that we can say whatever we want on somebody else's property, especially when they say we can't? For instance this forum is not a Public forum by LAW, and it can be moderated/censored in any fashion desired by the private owner of the privately owned forum. Claiming it is an Open forum won't change that fact any more than claiming FB/Meta is an Open forum. As for the term "Censorship" I assume you mean ideas and not crime. This post is an opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |