Texas governor signs bill prohibiting social media giants from blocking users based on viewpoint

Untrue conspiracies? Like Trump is a racist? Or a bigot? Antifa isn't a violent terrorist organisation? BLM isn't Marxist? Things like that?

 

"Russia supporting Trumpers"... LOLOL... you mean like Biden ok'ing the their pipeline while cancelling ours? Oh wait... you mean the debunked Mueller silliness... ok.

 

I wouldn't think you are for mandatory vaccinations. Or are you having consistency errors?

 

It's authoritarian to stop authoritarianism?

Is it also authoritarianism if they try and prevent someone from stopping another person from speaking in the public square?

 

Do you think websites just exist through magic or is there tons of code and maintenance that is required.
Not to mention branding and advertising.

Where did the ‘if you don’t like it go somewhere else’ mentality go?
Is this small government to you?

 

More ranting and even less truth, impressive.

I have met several soldiers, have a few in my family that can comprehend what the constitution does and doesn’t do and do not resort to very sad debate practices. I guess not all can come out a better person.

 

How is a private company a public square? Should government be able to force Fox News to allow liberals to voice their views? Breitbart? OAN?

The sites that have banned a few extreme right wing individuals did so due to constant violations of their ToS — do you feel the government should be the one writing and enforcing these ToS instead of the company?

 

I see... you have relatives that served and you are ashamed that you, yourself, did not... so you lash out at others in your shame and disappointment. We have seen this before. Is it too late? Can you still sign up? I'll be glad to help you if you wish.

 

It isn't a private company it is a publicly protected publisher that curates its content yet has loopholes in the government to protect them from liability. And there's also probably some funds coming from the government going into it.

I've heard all this nonsense before it is propaganda that you choose to believe that's your business.

 

If it produces people of your character? No thanks…

Sad attempt to deflect that you have no factual basis for your opinion that the constitution forces private companies to provide a platform for others against their wishes.

 

You miss the point. Its not about forcing anyone to do anything. Its about preventing peple from stifling free speech.

And lose the insults. They make you look very childish.

 

So are you arguing they (and sites like PF) should lose these protections or that they should be forced by the government to allow all speech?

Do you have an example of someone permanently banned not from violating the TOS but only because they were conservative?

 

GOT FREEDOM
less & less


Moi

The FREEDOMIST
on Board​

 

That is functionally forcing someone to do something. Free speech is only guaranteed by the government — not private companies. Should Fox News be forced to give an equal amount of airtime to liberals?

Don’t levy them if your sensibilities cannot handle it in return.

 

You miss the point. Its not about forcing anyone to do anything. Its about preventing people from stifling free speech. I'll leave the insults to you. They say things about you and I don't want such labels.

FOX allows left wingers to speak. They often air Nancy, Biden and even OAC.

 

If government boot on your throat means freedom to you, then you can keep it.

They are pushing marxism and calling it "freedom". Sad.

What's next, - nationalize private corporations in name of "freedom"? No doubt they'd support that too.

 

no sites like YouTube should lose their platform protection for being a publisher if they're curating opinions based on what they like they should be held liable for the material they allow onto the platform instead of protected from it.

I'm not playing this game with you you want me to try and give you examples of something you already know happens.

I'm okay with you just denying it. I'll save the convincing for those who can be.

 

What boot? FREEDOM from China Virus tyranny? FREEDOM from business closures? FREEDOM from Draconian gun laws? FREEDOM from DC over-reach? FREEDOM from liberal CRT brainwashing of our kids? I don't see any boot anywhere except for the one we want to use on DC liberals.

 

Again, don’t cry victim when you start something. Our military must be embarrassed.

Twitter and Facebook both allow millions of conservatives. Fox has some left wing people that are banned, you support forcing them to allow these individuals to air on their network?

 

Love it. Now you are advocating violence against people because you don’t agree with them.

And you play the victim.

Such a fascinating narrative. Thankfully it is aging out of being an issue.

 

Can you name any lib that was openly BANNED by FOX? FACEBOOK cancels accounts completely. Has FOX ever BANNED anyone? I don't think so.

 

Of course you don't see it when you don't even know what the conversation is about. Abbott put the government boot on the throats of private corporations and mandates them to allow politicians use their property and resources for free while being immune to TOS.

 

Its a voting boot... firing them. Only a lib would equate removing someone from office with violence. I never play the victim... but I do oppose federal overreach... I do support the Bill of Rights and I DO speak out for freedom.

 

Does the “I have so many sources but I am not going to share them with you” ever really work in your debates. Do you think people say “yeh, he definitely has a legitimate source”…

If you are just making up facts you really shouldn’t engage me as I will always ask for a source. I can source mine easily — why can’t you?

it’s a rhetorical question, we both know the answer.

 

You would have done well with Goebbels... he stifled speech too.