I feel broken, devastated, and exhausted.

China should be interested in hosting what US Media bans.

 

Oh, no, I don't think there's anything deliberate there on her part. She's just sharing what she's seen.

 

Like disinformation about the origins of COVID? Bio weapons facilities in Wuhan? I’m sure they’re chomping at the bit.

 

No. Not that. Nothing critical of China.

Just information to increase Social Discontent in USA.

 

Oh gotcha. Well you go enjoy Facebook China after your political hiatus. I’m sure it’ll be a hoot.

 

Well, its good to see you admit that they are making publication decisions. Because that is the difference between a platform, which is protected from lawsuits, and a publication...which is not protected from lawsuits. Twitter, FB, Youtube et al, all of them portrayed themselves as platforms where any and all was welcome outside of inciting violence and porn. Now they police speech and are the arbiters of what is true or false and act accordingly. They are no longer platforms deserving of protections from lawsuits. They are publishers who can now be sued.

 

Plenty of networks did call it for Gore, that should teach people the media does not declare the winner. Here's just one example


TV coverage of Bush v. Gore is a scary reminder of what can go
www.chicagotribune.com › entertainment › ct-ent-electi...
Aug 17, 2020 — 8, 2000, when NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw looked into a camera on his ... But the networks soon had to pull back their call, as the vote margin between ... With Florida back in play, Gore and Bush were tied at 242, which ...

 

Might as well dissolve them if that is what you’re going to demand.

 

Only time will tell. Hopefully Supreme Court will side with Conservatives. I am now leaving this forum until Feb 1, 2021.

Best Regards to all who support me.

 

Sure as hell will never happen under a Democrat Admin.

 

Probably.

 

Already debunked several times now. Sorry, but courts just aren't going to uphold the hatred you guys have for free speech and private property rights.

 

Or they could stop censoring political content in a blatant attempt to control the narrative. Here is a message from a friend of mine who just got a 30 day ban, when I asked why, this was his response. (granted, this example is not very political)

You won't believe it. I was reading the COMMENTS of an electric bike ad and some woman wrote (in SPANISH) that she had ordered one two months ago and hadn't received it. I responded to her IN SPANISH "Chinos ladrones" (Chinese thieves) and instantly I'm banned. Now we know "Fo Sho" who controls FB now!

 

LOL, the subject IS censorship of free speech.

 

Nope. Nor under any remotely responsible GOP admin. Or any admin capable of respecting 1st Amendment and private property rights. Hell, Reagan set the standard for this one while fighting against the "fairness doctrine."

 

Lol, some of us actually are capable of comprehending the 1st Amendment and what ACTUAL free speech rights entail. Hint: the 1st Amendment does not grant you the right to force someone else to publish your views if they don't want to. Not sure why you guys still struggle with that concept (or at least pretend to).

It isn't a violation of your free speech rights if someone refuses to lend you their bullhorn. Why are you pretending to not understand that?

 

Actually that is exactly why they argued that they were platforms instead of publishers and was deserving of protection status. That without such status it would hinder the growth of the internet because if everyone was considered a publisher then many people would avoid the internet in order to avoid lawsuits that are normally reserved for publishers. In exchange for that protection they had to stay as platforms. Not act as publishers do. By censoring speech, by deciding who is telling the truth and who is spreading falsehoods they are no longer acting as platforms, but as publishers. Its their own fault. And if they get dissolved because of it then that too is their own fault. They should have stayed platforms.

 

If the censorship shoe was on the other foot, me thinks you view might be a wee bit different.

 

It isn't really about platform vs publisher. They don't review/approve content before it is posted. That's why they aren't responsible for it. No, having terms of service doesn't change that. Nor should it. Sorry, but y'alls war against the 1st Amendment has failed.

 

I understand what you can feel, social medias however can have however a negative impact on aspie psychic health, especially in anxiety. As an aspie also, PC liberals are a source of stress, however, there is ways to just not talk to them, a bigger punition than being in a conflict with them as they love conflict, more than void, but don't underestimate how toxic can the social networks and news be on us.
To get unplug from the internet, listening a nice piece of music, going to walk to the forest, that's necessary.

 

And you would "thinks" wrong. I've had content removed from this site. Did I make fake arguments, like yours, of my "rights" being taken away? No. Have I called for the government to step in? No. Have I argued that PF's 1st Amendment rights or private property rights should be taken away? No.

 

How is Facebook or Twitter inherently different from PF?

 

I suppose it's possible Trump could get 45k+ votes in PA, 36k+ votes in NV, 17k+ votes in AZ, and 10k+ votes in GA to overtake those states....but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

How are Facebook and Twitter inherently different from PF?

 

They have algorithms analyze it as soon as you post it. They have been forcing group page admins to preapprove posts. On my local city group page they made them, then if enough people report content to FB mods, they threaten to shut down the page by shifting responsibilty from themselves to the group page Admins.