Twitter swings the ban hammer at Project Veritas (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    nolaspe

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 13, 2019
    Messages
    540
    Reaction score
    1,411
    Age
    47
    Location
    NOLA
    Offline

    Project Veritas has been known to use deceptive practices and spread misinformation in attempts to expose what it views as “corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct” from liberal organizations or individuals. In September, Stanford University and University of Washington researchers wrote that a Project Veritas video alleging voter fraud with unidentified sources was what a “a domestic, coordinated elite disinformation campaign looks like in the United States.”
     
    This is awesome news, they are particularly vile liars. I am pretty sure I also read that Twitter has made Trump’s ban permanent. Even if he holds public office again, heaven forbid, he will not be allowed a Twitter account. If I read correctly.
     

    The Misinformation Label is lefty's latest tactic to suppress the truth and silence those with whom he disagrees in social media.
     
    The Misinformation Label is lefty's latest tactic to suppress the truth and silence those with whom he disagrees in social media.
    Actually I see it as them getting ahead of Congress making changes to section 230 (I think that's the thing in the news), and make them liable for what people post. If that's the case, they are going censor the crap out of everyone.

    I mean, Robert F Kennedy Jr is a democrat and was removed from Instagram from sharing debunked lies about vaccinations.

    So, it's not just "Lefty" doing it.
     
    Actually I see it as them getting ahead of Congress making changes to section 230 (I think that's the thing in the news), and make them liable for what people post. If that's the case, they are going censor the crap out of everyone.

    I mean, Robert F Kennedy Jr is a democrat and was removed from Instagram from sharing debunked lies about vaccinations.

    So, it's not just "Lefty" doing it.



    Section 230 affords website publishers the status of non-publishers in terms of general immunity regarding third-party content. The idea was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and protect free speech. For a while there it was working just fine. But, of course, Democrats eschew its enforcement as the prevailing big tech oligopoly serves them; more at, the latter is in league with them, ideologically.

    Trump's mistake was to rely on Congress to enforce the provision. The executive branch enforces the law. He should have invoked antitrust law when it became abundantly clear just a few years ago, especially, that this oligopoly had no intention of honoring the terms of the provision, particularly regarding the free speech of conservatives, whose reasoned opinions of common sense and decency had come to dominate interactive social media. Now those voices are being systematically deplatformed/demonetized. But, then, leftists have always employed various mechanisms to stifle the free exchange of ideas, as the madness of their ideas cannot withstand the cultural dynamics of competition.
     
    please list some examples of these "common sense and decency" conservative for us to know whom you are referring to

    Generally, I'm alluding to the wisdom of the American conservative (classical liberal) regarding the imperatives of natural law.
     
    Generally, I'm alluding to the wisdom of the American conservative (classical liberal) regarding the imperatives of natural law.

    Okay, but I am asking what, or who specifically, in your opinion you have seen as being de-platformed? Specifically some names, because you mentioned it, you must have seen a few, or know of a few specific people in mind when you mentioned this
     
    Okay, but I am asking what, or who specifically, in your opinion you have seen as being de-platformed? Specifically some names, because you mentioned it, you must have seen a few, or know of a few specific people in mind when you mentioned this

    Well, in that instance I'm alluding to the dozens of conservative Youtubers who have been deplatformed, demonetized or routinely have their videos blocked.
     
    Well, in that instance I'm alluding to the dozens of conservative Youtubers who have been deplatformed, demonetized or routinely have their videos blocked.

    Okay, maybe third time will be the charm. Please name some of the dozens so we can see if your claims have merit.
     
    Okay, maybe third time will be the charm. Please name some of the dozens so we can see if your claims have merit.

    Just for starters: PragerU, Crowder, Tommy Robinson, Veritas, Candace Owens, and many others have been deflatformed altogether, including Stefan Molyneux who was falsely accused of racism.
     
    But the whole point of Section 230 was to protect free speech.

    No it wasn't. It was to protect social media corporations from lawsuits, that's pretty much it. If you want to get rid of section 230, expect more content policing from them.

    And dude, if you're using Stephen Molyneaux as an example of unfair cancel culture, you're going to have a hard time making your point.
     
    No it wasn't. It was to protect social media corporations from lawsuits, that's pretty much it. If you want to get rid of section 230, expect more content policing from them.

    And dude, if you're using Stephen Molyneaux as an example of unfair cancel culture, you're going to have a hard time making your point.

    Nonsense, the ultimate intent, as I observed in the above:

    Section 230 affords website publishers the status of non-publishers in terms of general immunity regarding third-party content. The idea was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and protect free speech.​

    I never said Section 230 should be gotten rid of. It just needs to be enforced. See above.

    Molyneaux is just one dozens who have been deplatformed. I take it you're a fan of deplatformation.
     
    Nonsense, the ultimate intent, as I observed in the above:

    Section 230 affords website publishers the status of non-publishers in terms of general immunity regarding third-party content. The idea was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and protect free speech.​

    I never said Section 230 should be gotten rid of. It just needs to be enforced. See above.

    Enforced how -- there's nothing in section 230 that says social media has to host anyone. It's a protection clause, not a law to force companies to do the will of the state.

    Molyneaux is just one dozens who have been deplatformed. I take it you're a fan of deplatformation.

    I'm a fan of consequences for actions. If you say that black people are dumber than white people, and that women are causing the problems in society today, then I don't have a lot of sympathy if a private company does not want to let you use them to make money.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom