Wacko Marjorie Green embraced by Trump, GOP leaders

#301
#301
Rasputin_Vol said:
You see how Apple, Google and Amazon were able to work together (collude) to have Parler shut down for a while last year? They removed the Parler app from the Apple store and Google store and Amazon removed them from their web hosting service.
Click to expand...
You mean how they implemented some shrewd business tactics to nose out a competitor? That's reality. You are whining about things which are completely legal.
 
#306
#306
Rasputin_Vol said:
Wait... now you are making the assumption that something is being exchanged between the White House and these social media companies. Even I didn't make that claim. I was simply saying the White House was influencing/coordinating with the social media companies. I said nothing about an exchange of money.

Sounds like you are a bit more cynical than I am, but this does give us something to ponder.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned "The White House".
 
#307
#307
BowlBrother85 said:
You can't prove that. It's sour grapes. Nothing more... Nothing less.
Click to expand...
not entirely true but the problem with this line of thought is that eventually the pendulum swings back. Instead of celebrating the huge overreach of the federal govt into every aspect of our lives maybe we should ponder whether it's a good idea
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and Rasputin_Vol
#308
#308
BowlBrother85 said:
You can't prove that. It's sour grapes. Nothing more... Nothing less.
Click to expand...
From the horses own mouth...

Hypocritical Psaki leads chilling effort to flag 'misinformation'

"We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We're working with doctors and medical experts…who are popular with their audience with accurate information. So, we're helping get trusted content out there."

That's White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki brazenly saying the quiet part out loud regarding the U.S. government colluding with a private company in deciding what constitutes misinformation and what doesn’t.
Click to expand...
 
#313
#313
Rasputin_Vol said:
From the horses own mouth...
Click to expand...
"Shutting down political opponents" isn't censoring them from just one platform, or even two platforms. Shutting down a political opponent would have to involve preventing that political opponent from starting their own platform and prohibiting them from competing against Facebook and Twitter. Once again, conservatives/Republicans do not have a right to Twitter or Facebook membership.

Can you prove that the White House has prevented political opponents from starting their own social networking platforms? If so, please tell me about it. Provide specific details. I'll wait.
 
#314
#314
The problem we've had since around mid 2015 is that the right is much more apt to use blatant lies and propaganda to sway public opinion. If it would have remained more of a 50/50 thing between the two parties, nothing would have been done.
The Trump strategy from the beginning was to gaslight, to destroy the public's confidence in legitimate news, to flood the market with as much BS possible, to misinform, etc.....
It became a bigger problem and one that did not balance out between the two sides.
All that we are seeing are the exact results that Trump had intended......a dumber and more divided America.
 
#315
#315
BowlBrother85 said:
"Shutting down political opponents" isn't censoring them from just one platform, or even two platforms. Shutting down a political opponent would have to involve preventing that political opponent from starting their own platform and prohibiting them from competing against Facebook and Twitter. Once again, conservatives/Republicans do not have a right to Twitter or Facebook membership.

Can you prove that the White House has prevented political opponents from starting their own social networking platforms? If so, please tell me about it. Provide specific details. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
You mean like they colluded to do with Parler last year?

To be clear, this is an example of the social media companies working together. But we already know that this White House is not afraid of orchestrating such actions themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and hog88
#317
#317
BowlBrother85 said:
Can you prove that the White House has prevented political opponents from starting their own social networking platforms? If so, please tell me about it. Provide specific details. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
No evidence of that yet... but if they are working with these social media companies right now, there s no reason to think they would not move in that direction.

We have a two-fold problem. These private entities already show a pattern of working together to silence certain types of speech. Now you add in a radical and extreme White House that has openly admitted to coordinating and directing activities with this cartel, and that is a recipe for having the 1st Amendment circumvented.
 
#319
#319
BowlBrother85 said:
Please prove that the government had a role in that.
Click to expand...
At the very least, it was collusion by these entities to shut down a competitor. Obviously, Trump and his White House didn't make this move, but it not beyond the real of possibility that this current White House would coordinate with these companies if they wanted to.

And as far as we know (just speculating), there very well could have been some behind the scenes conversations between the incoming administration and these social media companies. Promises made on future legislation or as you brought up... maybe some exchange of money???
 
#321
#321
We have to have a semblance of balance.
That can be accomplished in one of three ways (or a combination of the 3 ways).
1 - the left can up their game of lies, misinformation and propaganda.
2 - the right can tone down their use of lies, misinformation and propaganda.
3 - outside forces (companies/govt.) can force the balance by controlling content.

The best choice but evidently the least likely is 2.
I prefer 3 over 1....it's ultimately better for the country.
 
#323
#323
luthervol said:
We have to have a semblance of balance.
That can be accomplished in one of three ways (or a combination of the 3 ways).
1 - the left can up their game of lies, misinformation and propaganda.
2 - the right can tone down their use of lies, misinformation and propaganda.
3 - outside forces (companies/govt.) can force the balance by controlling content.

The best choice but evidently the least likely is 2.
I prefer 3 over 1....it's ultimately better for the country.
Click to expand...

It’s interesting you don’t see #1 as something that has existed for a long time now. The left doesn’t own any moral high ground in any of this either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#324
#324
luthervol said:
We have to have a semblance of balance.
That can be accomplished in one of three ways (or a combination of the 3 ways).
1 - the left can up their game of lies, misinformation and propaganda.
2 - the right can tone down their use of lies, misinformation and propaganda.
3 - outside forces (companies/govt.) can force the balance by controlling content.

The best choice but evidently the least likely is 2.
I prefer 3 over 1....it's ultimately better for the country.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the left can go much further than russiagate and covid. The level of lies, misinformation and propaganda has been unbelievable
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#325
#325
Rasputin_Vol said:
At the very least, it was collusion by these entities to shut down a competitor. Obviously, Trump and his White House didn't make this move, but it not beyond the real of possibility that this current White House would coordinate with these companies if they wanted to.

And as far as we know (just speculating), there very well could have been some behind the scenes conversations between the incoming administration and these social media companies. Promises made on future legislation or as you brought up... maybe some exchange of money???
Click to expand...

Although I think what they did was wrong, I know of no evidence that they colluded. Their actions worked together to blackball Parler, but who can say that they coordinated?

You can't assume collusion just because a handful of entities obstructed a business that they politically opposed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top