You may recall that after fake free speech absolutist Elon Musk got all pissy at Media Matters’ use of its own free speech rights to point out the fact that they were able to find ads on ExTwitter from giant companies appearing next to the accounts of literal neo-Nazis
They didn't "find them", they manufactured circumstance of their occurrence. And then much more importantly, legally, They lied about how that occurrence came about.
You know all this and continue to lie about it, you partisan shithead. Arguably Musk could sue you for defamation, though I doubt he's heard of you. You are making material lies and there's clear malice. Damage would be a little challenging because I just don't think TD has any traffic anymore to speak of.
This lawsuit is ongoing and has survived challenges to be dismissed.
Shithead.
‘Not being given preferential treatment in the form of recommendations is the same as being silenced’, how very US conservative/republican of them.
It's not that, either. It means they won't show up for any searches on the topic. ANY topic, really. It means that you'd have to search that EXACT name for it to show.
It's a shadowban. And yes it's censorship and yes it would be very bad if it was done at WH demand, which it apparently was.
To be clear, Jim Jordan is absolutely right and Mike is full of shiit.
Amazon was not reacting to the publication of an article.
I never said that.
Amazon was reacting to learning about the article pre-publication.
Yeah, I know. This is just me paraphrasing a prior conversation. I'm aware that they were talking about an article soon to be published and never said otherwise. You're confused and barking up the wrong tree.
The issue, and the thing Mike is lying about, is that that email was dated on the 12th. It doesn't say when they learned of the (impending) buzzfeed article but it was presumably just before that email was written, on the 12th. The book in question was (shadow)banned 3 days prior on the 9th. That's the "Enable DO NOT PROMOTE" bit at the end. That's why email is relevant, actually.
The timing makes it clear that the book being banned had nothing to do with buzzfeed (it was presumably at WH request, as they had met earlier that day). But Mike used that email to pretend that they banned the book because of Buzzfeed when it actually shows that could NOT have been the reason.
He's lying. Very much on purpose. And when challenged his only response was to suggest I couldn't read.
the PDF you shared AT NO POINT shows the CDC asking anyone to ban anyone
But it does show the fed gov (WH) asking content to be banned, which it then was. Which is the evidence you asked for.
This is pathetic. You lost. Admit it.
Now: Why did lie about the timing of when Amazon banned that book vs when they learned of Buzzfeed? Apparently you're STILL lying about it. But they banned it 3 days before that email, you lying, reneging turd.
Because your site is from 2005 (and now it's editing variations of your name, suspicious) you get the same comment twice:
But, fine, if you have a citation to one of those “every other article” you’ve read about the case “written by actual lawyers” that presents the actual evidence of the CDC doing what you claim, I’ll accept that.
Weasel words, MM. You're just asking me to go pdf hunting via a different method.
But y'know what, this is the same article I linked too before (Jacob Sullum is not a lawyer. Other authors at Reason such as Volokh are, but they make more arguments, link to the docs less)
https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-federal-officials-unconstitutionally-coerced-or-encouraged-online-censorship/
And near the end of that article is this link, which seems to match your request exactly:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf#page=9
(there are plenty of others in the same document and linked to)
But again, my offer stands. Prove me wrong on this.
I would say I"m looking forward to my duly owed apology, but I have zero faith in you and am quite sure you will invent a bullshit excuse on why that doesn't count in some way.
I ignored this because it’s not what we’re talking about and because I already responded to it when it first came up.
No you didn't. Or if you did, it was long after I had stopped paying attention whichever post. You're free to link to whatever "response" you think you made here, of course.
The question remains: Why did you lie about the dates?
Do you understand that it’s only perjury if it’s factually proven?
No, actually. Particularly as far as the bar association is concerned. Again, ask Bill Clinton.
You have a completely mooronic understanding here, and are trying to make that somehow my problem.
a Christian is as capable of blowing people up as a Muslim or an atheist.
Statistically they don't, tho.
That one OKlahoma bombing probably throws off the numbers a lot, cuz they got a lot of people (including kids), but still,
Statistically they don't, tho.
And Stephen, seriously, statistics can't be racist, so don't even bother.
You said a really stupid thing, suck it up.
If someone who identifies as a neo-Nazi (or could reasonably be identified as such) believes in the same general tenets as the original Nazis, does it really matter if the “neo” prefix is attached to the descriptor?
Yes, incredibly. Because everyone understands "neo-nazi" is a small and specific thing. Meanwhile you nitwits are pretending half the country are literal actual nazis, which lol, no they aren't.
So yeah, words are important.
“Desperate” would suggest that making Musk look stupid is difficult or unlikely.
You guys seem to have this fiction that people can just "luck into" being the richest guy on earth and successfully growing like...a dozen companies? You have your excuses for each one.
I think this has a lot more to do with the lies you tell yourselves than anything involving Musk.
That’s all there is to this – an email that suggest Amazon was more concerned about the Buzzfeed article than governmental coercion
Completely incorrect. At that point, they had already implemented the shadowban 3 days earlier. The same day as meeting with the White House, after talking to them for a week.
So kinda the opposite of that.
Dude, I have decided you are not smart enough to talk to, less for this and more for the library thing.
Pretty sure libraries shut down all the time for various reasons.
As for "removing books", I assume you mean from public libraries. The content of public libraries is subject to the political process, your neighbors may well think the library you BOTH pay for should carry different books than you do.
or today’s article of literally burning books?
A candidate, not a serving offial, and she was burning books she presumably owned. (She said they were "from the library" I have no idea how literal that is, she could be charged with theft or vandalism, but it seems much more likely she just bought the same books the library had)
Thing is, None of these things violates the 1A. Telling a private bookseller what books they may carry certainly does.
For fucks sake man, fucking google it!
See, the thing is that I didn't have to and I was pointing out any such characterization was bullcrap. You guys on the other hand were throwing shade on a very real story you just wanted to pretend was not.
blocking all
checking?
You are a liar
He said "not how science is done". Except that, science is indeed done that way. Which part did I misread, exactly?
To be clear, Jim Jordan is absolutely right and Mike is full of shiit.
I never said that. Yeah, I know. This is just me paraphrasing a prior conversation. I'm aware that they were talking about an article soon to be published and never said otherwise. You're confused and barking up the wrong tree. The issue, and the thing Mike is lying about, is that that email was dated on the 12th. It doesn't say when they learned of the (impending) buzzfeed article but it was presumably just before that email was written, on the 12th. The book in question was (shadow)banned 3 days prior on the 9th. That's the "Enable DO NOT PROMOTE" bit at the end. That's why email is relevant, actually. The timing makes it clear that the book being banned had nothing to do with buzzfeed (it was presumably at WH request, as they had met earlier that day). But Mike used that email to pretend that they banned the book because of Buzzfeed when it actually shows that could NOT have been the reason. He's lying. Very much on purpose. And when challenged his only response was to suggest I couldn't read.Because your site is from 2005 (and now it's editing variations of your name, suspicious) you get the same comment twice:
Weasel words, MM. You're just asking me to go pdf hunting via a different method. But y'know what, this is the same article I linked too before (Jacob Sullum is not a lawyer. Other authors at Reason such as Volokh are, but they make more arguments, link to the docs less) https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-federal-officials-unconstitutionally-coerced-or-encouraged-online-censorship/ And near the end of that article is this link, which seems to match your request exactly: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf#page=9 (there are plenty of others in the same document and linked to) I would say I"m looking forward to my duly owed apology, but I have zero faith in you and am quite sure you will invent a bullshit excuse on why that doesn't count in some way. No you didn't. Or if you did, it was long after I had stopped paying attention whichever post. You're free to link to whatever "response" you think you made here, of course. The question remains: Why did you lie about the dates?....ok
If you try to tell me "nitwit" is a racial slur of some kind I am gonna just laugh at you for all time.
Pretty sure libraries shut down all the time for various reasons. As for "removing books", I assume you mean from public libraries. The content of public libraries is subject to the political process, your neighbors may well think the library you BOTH pay for should carry different books than you do.
A candidate, not a serving offial, and she was burning books she presumably owned. (She said they were "from the library" I have no idea how literal that is, she could be charged with theft or vandalism, but it seems much more likely she just bought the same books the library had) Thing is, None of these things violates the 1A. Telling a private bookseller what books they may carry certainly does. See, the thing is that I didn't have to and I was pointing out any such characterization was bullcrap. You guys on the other hand were throwing shade on a very real story you just wanted to pretend was not.