GOP Releases Bill To Stop Administration From Pressuring Social Media Companies… And, It’s Actually Not Totally Crazy?
from the a-surprisingly-not-terrible-bill dept
Now that the House is (barely) in the control of the Republican Party, we expected an awful lot of dumb anti-tech laws (the Democrats are also pushing dumb anti-tech laws, but of a different nature). The GOP has, in the recent past, laid out a big long list of bills as part of its “big tech” platform, and most of them are ridiculous and often unconstitutional (and many of them conflict with each other). Furthermore, it was noted that part of Speaker McCarthy’s negotiations with hardliners, who initially withheld their votes in his quest to become Speaker, included setting up a silly special committee to “investigate” government “weaponization” of social media. This has come to pass.
So, I fully expected the first tech-related bills to come out of the House to be pretty stupid. But… I’m actually kinda surprised. Representatives James Comer and Cathy McMorris Rodgers have introduced a bill to stop the administration (amusingly, their press release focuses on the Biden administration, without noting that such a bill would, in theory, bind future administrations of either party) from “pressuring social media companies” in how they moderate.
And, on the whole, I actually like the concept of the bill. The government shouldn’t be pressuring anyone regarding their moderation decisions. Of course, that kind of pressure is already a violation of the 1st Amendment, but having it explicitly laid out in a law like this avoids having to go down the trickier 1st Amendment challenge route. The crux of the bill:
In General—An employee may not —
use the employee’s official authority or influence to advocate that any third party, including a private entity, take any action to censor any speech.
There are a bunch of caveats and definitions in the bill, but.. yeah, in general any of that would likely be a 1st Amendment violation (or at least close to it). I am concerned about the inclusion of “influence” here, because, it’s never a 1st Amendment violation for the government to use the bully pulpit to try to persuade companies or individuals to do things, they do that all the time. The 1st Amendment issue — as courts have repeatedly noted — only comes in when there’s some sort of coercion, usually in the form of a threat of punishment. Merely trying to influence, however, is standard practice for the government.
Still, the real issue is that many people are (falsely) insisting that there’s evidence that the Biden administration has already been engaged in forcing companies to “censor,” when the details suggest otherwise. That doesn’t mean the administration hasn’t gone right up to the line in ways that were counterproductive, or just fucked up the messaging in its initiatives in a manner that enabled bad faith actors to lie and pretend that there was censorship going on.
And, yes, the White House should stop doing that.
Of course, the Trump White House regularly would have violated this law in demanding that social media companies moderate in the way they wanted, but we’ll leave that aside as well.
The big issue with the bill is in some of the gray areas of the definitions. Would the White House merely talking about foreign influence operations or election disinformation be seen as “influencing” social media to remove that content? Because, if so, that would obviously be ridiculous.
The way current 1st Amendment precedent stands, there needs to be some real coercive aspect to the government speech, including some sort of threatened implication for not obeying and taking down the concerning speech. So, the fear with this bill is that the broad concept of “influencing” social media could sweep up what should be perfectly normal, valid governmental actions around public education.
That said, a bill like this could have been much worse. Indeed, given the other things the GOP has said of late, I expected it to be way worse.
It’s unlikely this bill goes anywhere, of course, but kudos to Reps. Comer and McMorris Rodgers for actually introducing a bill that mostly seems focused on actually reinforcing the 1st Amendment’s protections.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, cathy mcmorris rodgers, content moderation, influence, james comer, social media
Comments on “GOP Releases Bill To Stop Administration From Pressuring Social Media Companies… And, It’s Actually Not Totally Crazy?”
Does endless whining about being their side being censored by politicians count as pressure?
Re:
Judging by the way Twitter and Facebook both bent over backwards to keep conservative politicians and pundits (up to and including a then-sitting President of the United States) from being hit with the hardest punishments for their TOS violations? Yeah, that might count.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Well, THAT'S not true
I love that you guys have just totally made up this fiction amongst yourselves. The fiction is something along the lines of “Bent over backwards not to ban them…based on the unfair double standards I have invented on policies that are themselves biased” Like you’ll claim Lorenz doxxing Libs of tiktok was fine, but Libs of Tiktok just reposting public videos some idiot made to point and laugh was not. Some of the includes yes, refusing to pretend a man is a “real” woman (which has all sorts of practical implications for sports and violence against women) and against covid “misinformation” a great deal of which turned out to be true.
Political persecution of conservative thought was clear and present. Not just bans, btw, but also numerous (layered, varied, and complex) shadowbans. Immediately after Musk took over basically all conservative pundits, personalities and in fact politicians saw their follower count rise. Many of these shadowbans, including against whole topics, are clearly laid out in the twitter files, also.
That’s just made up. But you guys do this. You repeat things amongst yourselves until you think it’s true. When asked for “source” you’ll just link someone’s opinion.
Re: Re: Re:
They’re biased against misinformation, which many conservatives apparently can’t stop spreading.
No, that’s the fantasy you’ve made up in your head.
Is that supposed to be evidence of something other than Musk rewriting policies and letting bullshitters back onto the platform?
No, that’s you again.
There’s literally a study showing this, as detailed by Techdirt, which you would know if you knew how to read.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Oh? Like that the covid vaccine has single digit effects on transmission, removing any justification to force someone else to get it? Cuz that was labeled “misinformation”. Also happens to be true.
How about that hospitals were (still largely are) massively overcounting covid deaths, labeling any death with covid as from covid? Cuz that clearly happened. Was labeled “misinformation”.
No, he cited a CNN opinion piece. Not that being a “study” would anything, look up the reproducibility crisis. Sociology papers are basically position pieces.
Re: Re: Re:3
Translation:
Perennially lliterate Bratty Matty has the definitions of “misinformation” swapped for the definitions of “true” and “actually happened.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/covid-pandemic-deaths-hospitalizations-overcounting/
Mhmm. Btw, these continual attempted uses of diminutives says a great deal about you, nothing about me.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Estimates”. “Probably”. Y’know, if I didn’t know better, I’d say that these doctors don’t know for sure whether the numbers of COVID-19 deaths are being overcounted. Sure, they probably have more knowledge than us on the matter—they are physicians, after all—but when it comes to this discussion, I’d prefer hard statistics over educated guesses.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Real cute minimizing language. “Estimate” in this academic sense means “tried to do some real calculations with real-world imperfect data.” It’s not a loose guess.
Fact is it was real clear at the time people were dying of other, violent causes (gunshots and motorcycles) and yet being listed as “covid deaths”. Hospitals were given financial motivations to do so. I mean, of course if you count literally every patient who was infected with covid as a “covid death” you’re going to overcount them and that’s what happened.
This isn’t even arguable, actually, it’s just the first time someone prominently cited by the media (and previously calling such things “misinformation”) is admitting it.
Damn, really NO citation is good enough for you people, is it?
Re: Re: Re:7
But it is still a guess, educated though it may be. Trying to pass that off as a certifiable fact is misleading at best.
I imagine that those cases were not as widespread as you want me to believe they were. Besides, I’ve also heard stories about people proclaiming that deaths attributed to COVID were caused by some other malady—and in the majority of those stories, the patients (or their families) were conservatives who wanted so much to not face the reality of COVID-19.
Your source isn’t offering much more than an educated guess. Despite how good that guess may be, it isn’t a proper substitute for actual statistics.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
So that’s not true. The reporting bias is a known fact, has been a long time. (the statistics have always been available) The notable bit is that one of main deniers of that fact admitting the fact. Maybe you’re just too ignorant of the news to be aware.
But I remain amazed that literally no citation is ever good enough. Gee, I wonder why we don’t respond everytime a liberal screams “sOUrcE!” If you don’t attack the publication itself (mostly likely because your preferred liberal papers just refuse to cover it) you’ll do what you’re doing an misinterpret words like “estimate” that you don’t even understand the significance of.
Go ahead, Stephen, claim cuz I’m calling you ignorant I hate the gays (or transgenders or black people). Par for the course.
Re: Re: Re:9
That doesn’t mean someone claiming the near-exact opposite—that an overwhelming majority of deaths attributed to COVID are not actually COVID-related—is the factual backed-up-by-statistics truth. Again: The sources for that opinion article are making educated guesses; as good as those guesses might be, the credentials of those making those guesses doesn’t turn their guesses into objective facts.
I don’t doubt that COVID deaths are overcounted. But the extent of that overcounting will likely never be known for sure. Acting like someone does know for sure because their educated guesses aligns with your own biases about the pandemic or “liberal reporting” or whatever is the kind of bad faith argument that we’ve been trying to tell you is considered weaksauce around here.
Again: I don’t doubt that COVID deaths are overcounted. But for someone to proclaim a number with some degree of certainty, then call it an “estimate”, indicates that even the person making that estimate can’t be sure if they’re right. I’m all for citations of fact; an estimate, no matter how educated, is not that.
Per Merriam-Webster:
estimate — verb — 1.a. to judge tentatively or approximately the value, worth, or significance of
Note the key adjectives in that definition: “tentatively” and “approximately”. Those aren’t signifiers of certainty. An estimate is still a guess, however educated it may be, and shouldn’t be considered a statistical fact.
Ah, yes, the “I disagreed with a lib, now watch him call me a bigot for that” ploy.
You think that’s intelligence you’re expressing?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
It is, actually.
Again, that is NOT correct, actually. They are statistical estimates of the same type used in medical papers. You are dramatically misunderstanding what a scientist means by the word “estimate”(maybe on purpose?)
No, that’s not true, we have a rough estimate (like, with error bars) now, and all the data is there to provide a precise accounting. But first, one must admit there’s a problem.
I stopped reading there. You are either blowing shit out your ass cuz you have no idea or just not arguing in good faith, and I stopped caring which.
No source will ever be good enough. Particularly if the liberal isn’t very smart.
Re: Re: Re:11
If only you would, but you keep coming back anyway. Take your Ls and leave, bro. Besides, the only reason you keep coming back is to provoke a confrontation with people you hate for the sole purpose of “owning the libs”.
I suggest you read a book—maybe try To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf, which entered the public domain at the start of this year.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
You rejected legitimate experts and an actual scientific estimate –which no, is not a “guess”, and you mark yourself as ignorant for labeling it such — as well as the notable fact that this same woman had been calling that exact statement “disinformation”. All to pretend you had not been refuted.
Yeah, I feel like I’m owning the libs.
Re: Re: Re:13
I’m not seeing you refute the assertion that the only reason you come here is to provoke a confrontation rather than have an actual reasoned discussion. Curious. 🤨
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
I own the libs through reasoned discussion. Unfortunately you’re very resistant to facts, but that isn’t MY issue. I don’t know why you find that interesting.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3622402-mandatory-hospital-screenings-fuel-inaccurate-covid-death-counts/
Re: Re: Re:15
You are wrong there, it a case of you being susceptible to every conspiracy theory that fits your biases.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
*ignores factual citation that’s right there.
Re: Re: Re:17 Ding Ding Ding we have another L
Some dipshits opinion isn’t a fact. Sorry you had to find out this way.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18
Ah, so you didn’t read it. Cuz it definitely wasn’t that.
Then goes through their methodology and math, etc, the usual thing you see in an academic study.
fuck why do liberals hate facts so much
Re: Re: Re:19
“fuck why do liberals hate facts so much”
Because you right wing nut jobs keep calling opinions facts.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20
you definitely didn’t click through to the statistics
Re: Re: Re:21
Hey loser, have you tried digging up?
Re: Re: Re:15
“I own the libs through reasoned discussion.”
Do you find wearing the red nose and large shoes distracting?
Re: Re: Re:16
Let’s not lump in clowns with this fuck.
Sure, they’re sometimes portrayed as murderers or scary monsters, or worse, as a musical act whose fandom have been classified as a criminal gang, but they’re not insurrectionist filth like Matty here.
Re: Re: Re:10
That doesn’t mean someone claiming the near-exact opposite—that an overwhelming majority of deaths attributed to COVID are not actually COVID-related—is the factual backed-up-by-statistics truth.
Come on, you know that Deep uhhh… Medicine would have us believe that people were dying of Covid, when in fact, we had thousands of bodies in trailers outside and stuff due to some other mysterious reason. (Shot on a motorcycle, most likely.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
It appears to be that they are not quite doubling the number of covid deaths.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3622402-mandatory-hospital-screenings-fuel-inaccurate-covid-death-counts/
Re: Re: Re:12
Sounds more like a current problem with how the news reports things to which no one pays attention, so big deal. As for 20% Medicare whatever, so what? That will go away in a bit.
currently reported COVID-19 deaths are an overestimate.
Maybe. That’s any cause of death, though, being over- or under-reported. That’s just how things are. Could we have massively excellent and mandated post-mortems on everyone? Sure, you wanna pay for that?
adding COVID-19 as a contributing cause of death to every death certificate in all SARS-CoV-2 positive hospitalized patients.
Wow, it’s a contributing cause. Who every would have thunk? (This is how death certs work.)
and excess testing among the workforce, which leads to lost productivity and staffing shortages.
Blah blah blah. No. Wall Street, industry, banks, and the Federal Reserve have that covered. Keep people unemployed. Keep prices high, using any excuse. Don’t produce the stupid oil to keep prices up, but no one is allowed to move on from it either.
In the height of a pandemic (or epidemic), yes, things should stop. Because business can’t seem to handle that is a problem with how business is done, and economies are run.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
OK, damn, so you didn’t understand ANY of what was talked about in that article. Wow.
OK, point of order: economies do not run when they are stopped, I sense you’re making a sorta anti-capitalist argument here (dumb on it’s face) because this basic question doesn’t even involve money: Do you want the bread to be baked and lights to be on? Even if you’re communist the economy needs to run for that.
More broadly the relevant question is: were the lives saved worth the cost saved? Since the lives saved was a very low number, very close to zero (one estimate I saw was 0.2%….of the deaths, already a low number) and the costs were enormous it’s pretty hard to conclude that was worth it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Demanding a haircut like a Karen isn’t going to help you much if you get strapped to a ventilator afterwards.
Re: Re: Re:5
It’s telling that you linked to disinformation from a non-credible source (Dr. Wen) that was already debunked with the hard data before you commented.
https://twitter.com/JPWeiland/status/1614704807188496384
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yeah man, all those facts are TOTALLY undone by a single tweet! /s
Actual data seems to indicate we are slightly less than doubling the number of deaths due to covid.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3622402-mandatory-hospital-screenings-fuel-inaccurate-covid-death-counts/
BTW, in normal times “excess deaths” can be pretty useful for computing deaths due to a novel disease. Problem is, the last 3 years were not normal times. “Deaths from despair” (suicides, overdoses, primarily) went way up due to the lockdowns (fentanyl helped)(and yeah, if were coincidentally infected, got counted as a covid death). Deaths due to violent crime went way up (arguably more due to Floyd and bail policies, but same time) and probably way more important you have a lot of people who just weren’t getting their routine screenings for heart and cancer conditions and then those wind up more deadly.
All told the lockdowns might have caused almost as many deaths as covid did. (Probably unfair to count Fentanyl (large) and murder (small) in that, but a good chuck of the deaths of despair were probably lockdown related)
Again, we’re counting covid deaths something like 2:1
Re: Re: Re:7
You bash people for not properly reading your sources, and then proceed to only glance at what someone else links. Fucking hypocrite.
If you knew how to read, you’d see there’s a link to a data site that has collated data from Johns Hopkins.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
“Glance”? It’s one sentence and a chart. I read it, and then told you why it’s irrelevant.
We’re overcounting covid deaths (STILL) a little less than 2:1
Re: Re: Re:9
I guess you’re technologically illiterate as well, now. Scroll down the thread a bit and there’s a LINK that shows data on Covid mortality.
A claim that you have yet to provide a source for, you hypocrite. The opinion piece you provided certainly doesn’t back you up, even if you think it does.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
You probably should have linked to the actual info then. You know how to do that, right? You didn’t cite “everything this retard said in this big thread”
I did and it did. Sorry you can’t read. There’s tons of other studies I could cite too, but it doesn’t matter, you’ll just reply with some retard with a graph, so why bother?
Fuck man, in order to understand statistics you need to be able to do math.
Re: Re: Re:11
I’m very sorry for assuming that you knew how to use a scroll wheel on a mouse.
That explains why you struggle with it.
Re: Re: Re:3
And right on cue. The right wing nut job pivots to covid conspiracy horseshit because for some reason they think being demonstrably wrong on two completely unrelated subjects somehow helps their cause.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
…and you proceed to ignore well established facts
Re: Re: Re:5 It's not that hard loser
Just take your L bro.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
on what, exactly?
Re: Re: Re:7
Life in general, for starters.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
my life is pretty good, k, thx.
Re: Re: Re:9
Can’t be that good if you keep coming back to a website you hate to argue with a pissant loser like me.
Re: Re: Re:10
Consistently losing to a pissant loser in public while everyone points and laughs at him.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Same would be of true tho, right? 😉
Re: Re: Re:11
At least I have the testicular fortitude to admit it. What’s your excuse?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Your standards are set pretty low, but it’s about what can be expected from Chozen’s private femboy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Stephen Stone, just wanna point out rando from your “side” is approx 100x more “homophobic” than I am. I find this shit kinda funny, tbh.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Sorry, were you misgendered? If being called a private femboy hurt your fee-fees that badly, I have very little issue with calling you a private cumslut if that’s more up your alley. That straight enough for you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Oh my. Just going to point out that all that says a lot about you, basically nothing about me.
Re: Re: Re:13
No, I’d say it’s a pretty accurate representation of the interpersonal tension you and Chozen share.
Re: Re: Re:13
I think this says more about you than anything, really.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
not actually my comment, but I get it, you’re very homophobic, thanks for sharing.
Re: Re: Re:15
Where’s the proof that it’s not your comment?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
I said so? Anyone can write anyone’s name in there. Actually considering your eagerness to post it, it’s most likely you wrote it.
What is your evidence I wrote it? You have none of course. This is grade level shit, c’mon.
Re: Re: Re:17
Or it’s more likely that in your neverending quest to shit on everyone here, you posted it yourself to try and paint everyone as homophobic.
Keep trying to own the libs, Matt. Weak little gotchas is all you have.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18
Glad to see you admit I gotcha. They’re great gotchas.
But no, I didn’t write the linked comment, and of course you know that.
Re: Re: Re:19
“Great” neither means weak nor little.
And no, I don’t know that you didn’t write the original comment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20
Yes….I know.
Re: Re: Re:21
[citation needed]
Maybe you should just stick to being Chozen’s boy toy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:22
Oh, I will. He’s going to show me a good time, but you keep hating on me because you’re too close-minded to be fabulous.
Re: Re: Re:23
You really are one hell of a pathetic simp.
Re: Re: Re:3
He did not cite a CNN opinion piece. He cited the authors of a report for the January 6th Committee tasked with exploring the impact of social media on January 6th, which was able to subpoena and review evidence from Twitter.
But, yet again, Matthew Bennett is not here to be truthful. He is here to push a narrative.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
He also cited a CNN opinion piece, but
I really don’t know why you’re bringing fiction into this.
Re: Re: Re:5
Fiction does not mean that with which you disagree.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yeah true, but that committee wasn’t even legal, and it’s product is wholly made up.
Re: Re: Re:7 Or are you allergic to citations now?
“Yeah true, but that committee wasn’t even legal,…”
Cool so let’s just see a citation for that. Since it would be, ya know, a massive worldwide scandal if your horseshit were true.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Yeah, no, the Speaker doesn’t get to pick the committee members of the opposition party. It was the picture of a show trial, with no opposing arguments. That you would even cite it indicts you.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3519890-pelosis-court-how-the-jan-6-committee-undermined-its-own-legitimacy/
Re: Re: Re:9 Put another L up on the board for bratty matty
Shit my gritz hon. It says opinion in the address. It says opinion in the header. And it’s in the opinion section of the website. You want to try for a real citation next time?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
See that’s funny, because you seem to think a neutral set of facts is available on this subject.
Do you know what they call it when a judge makes a ruling in a case? An Opinion.
Re: Re: Re:11
Holy shit you just now figured out that a word can mean more than one thing. Most people have that figured out by third grade but good on ya for getting there in the end.
You seem to have the definition of fact and opinion mixed up because you seem to have suffered severe head trauma in the recent past.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Ironically not a great example of a word meaning two different things. (those do exist of course) Judges ruling is just an opinion, same as any other opinion. It’s a binding opinion, but the term recognizes there’s a great deal of interpretation involved.
You kids are fucking amazing, truly.
Re: Re: Re:13 Take the L loser
“You kids are fucking amazing, truly.”
I shit on you nut jobs for love of the game. But it’s nice to be recognised once in a while.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Yeah, “amazing” is not a good thing in this context.
Man, you’re fucking smart, huh?
Re: Re: Re:15
You don’t exactly raise the bar particularly high.
Re: Re: Re:7
“and it’s product is wholly made up.”
Someone get that IMAX screen in here. We are losing so much money letting him project all over these comments and not on a screen!
Re: Re: Re:5
No. He linked to CNN to back up the (accurate) claim that Musk said Trump didn’t violate any policies. The CNN piece says nothing about the report.
So, you’re wrong.
You could admit you fucked up. Like a big boy. But, no, you’ll just act like a spoiled 7 year old again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I think you’re confused about who you’re replying to about what.
Re: Re: Re:7
No, it was a reply to you insisting that the “citation” showing that Twitter favored Republicans was to a “CNN opinion piece.”
That was objectively false. The piece does link to a CNN piece, but only to support the factual claim that Musk denied something. The CNN piece had nothing to do with the underlying claim, even as you tried to dismiss it as such.
Meanwhile, I will note that in this single thread you both try to dismiss an argument by waving it away as a “CNN opinion piece” while simultaneously insisting that we should all take a Washington Post “opinion piece” as gospel.
It’s almost as if you’re cherry picking.
Take the L, dude. Admit you’re wrong, like a big boy.
Can you do it? History to date has shown you cannot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Yeah, OK, there was no factual underpinning of the claim then. There was no evidence that twitter favored conservatives. That’s just actually made up, yeah? If you have actual numbers based on something objective (no idea how, violating a TOS is obviously judgement call subject to disagreement) then post that.
Except these things are not equivalent. One is just a standard reporter mouthing off their opinion (on CNN you’re lucky when they don’t try to pass that off as actual news) on the other you have a medical expert, who had been cited claiming this was “misinformation” in the past, now saying it is true, and citing actual statistics and math. Those are vastly different cases.
So you’re just dumb, then? Like I don’t even know what you want me to do with this. Do you realized how little sense that made?
Take the L
Re: Re: Re:9
Nah, loser, you clearly have lost over and over again in this thread. It wasn’t “just made up.” It was a Congressional investigation, in which they hired expert researchers and academics to explore this one issue, in which they had subpoena power to get detailed internal information from Twitter.
You’re wrong.
Be a big boy now and admit it.
Or, do what you always do and throw a childish temper tantrum like a 7 year old and insist you’re never wrong.
Matty: here’s a little secret you should know: every single person reading this threat things you’re a dumbass, pathetic, immature excuse for an adult. Every single person sees through your silly pointless bravado into the empty husk of a person you are.
That’s why all your comments get blocked. No one agrees with you because everyone knows you’re full of shit.
I know, you’re so insecure that your fragile ego can’t take it, but deep down inside, you know it’s true. You know you have nothing. You have nothing to back up what you’re saying. You’re just simping for disinfo peddlers who are laughing all the way to the bank at your pathetic gullibleness.
It’s true. And you know it. Deep down inside.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Well, those sure are words, I guess. unclear, tbh.
Re: Re: Re:11
They’re clear to anyone literate.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
I’m going to eat the horse paste from Elon Musk’s pee-pee and you’re not going to stop me.
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh sure, just ignore the plentiful pieces of actual misinformation, like claims that the vaccines magnetize people, contain graphene oxide, hydras, mind control nanobots, or that the disease was caused by 5g, that the vaccines “shed” or cause prion disease, or that people vaccinated have higher viral loads than the unvaccinated. AND THAT’s not even getting into the promotion of various forms of snake oil, from chlorine dioxide, to borax and epsonsalt “vaccine detox”,
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I definitely was NOT trying to claim misinformation doesn’t exist. I am saying lots of things that were true got labeled as “misinformation”, and that no one is particularly good at nor trusted enough to make that determination.
You can’t actually stop people from saying things that aren’t true, and you shouldn’t try.
Re: Re: Re:5
Such as?
How do you keep posting insane and dangerous hot takes? It’d be impressive if it wasn’t deranged.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Jesus fuck read the thread.
The problem with some “authority” trying to determine what is “misinformation” is people like you get involved, and you’re an actual moron who can’t do math.
Re: Re: Re:7
The thread where you have not presented a single fact that was labeled as misinformation…
Re: Re: Re:5
That would allow conspiracy theorists and bigots of all fallacious to run amok, and destroy society by trying to manage it based on fiction.
Re: Re: Re:6
r/fallacious/flavours/
(I Blane the spell checker for the mistake).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Yes, moron, people are going to say things you don’t like, that’s how free speech works.
Re: Re: Re:8
Yes, moron, people are going to say things you don’t like, that’s how free speech works.
Re: Re: Re:9
Accurately flagging Matty’s abusively spammed trolling as such is free speech he doesn’t like.
Re: Re: Re:
More tiresome projection from Bratty Matty.
Re: Re: Re:
When Donald Trump was sitting in the White House, someone had the bright idea to mirror all of his tweets verbatim on a separate Twitter account. By the time Trump’s ban came down, that mirror account had eaten more suspensions than Trump’s account ever had—and each one was for violating Twitter’s TOS merely by repeating, to the letter, something Trump had said.
My point was and is simple: Whereas Trump (and other conservatives) were given multiple chances to violate the TOS without eating a suspension or a ban—even if they did suffer other, smaller punishments—an account that mirrored Trump’s speech was dinged for multiple TOS violations. If Twitter had been playing fair and refusing to moderate based on some sort of partisan political bias, it would’ve suspended Trump himself for the same posts. But as proven by the “Twitter Files” the company gave conservatives multiple lesser punishments for TOS violations that, as I’ve explained with the Trump example, likely would’ve gotten anyone else suspended or banned.
Yes, Twitter bent over backwards to placate conservative politicians and pundits by not suspending/banning them for their TOS violations. That they may have been shadowbanned, downranked in searches, or received a “lighter” punishment still speaks to the idea that Twitter was unwilling to suspend those conservatives for blatant TOS violations. The reasons why may forever be a mystery (no person can know such things with the certainty of God), but the fact that these things happened remains a factual truth.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Seeing as numerous twitter employees admitted and argued Trump never violated any TOS, that would just mean twitter was banning people based on political bias and not actual violations. Which is exactly what happened.
Since Trump never vilated TOS, that seems to be just made up.
As I said, you guys tell yourselves fictions. It’s like it’s own mythology.
Re: Re: Re:3
Other ones did. Besides, for what reason (other than naked partisan bias) should the employees who believed Trump didn’t violate the TOS be considered the final word-of-God authority on the matter over the multiple suspensions handed down to the account that literally mirrored Trump’s tweets verbatim?
If that were true, Trump himself would’ve been suspended. An account mirroring Trump’s tweets was suspended instead. Seems like any bias at Twitter at the time ran in favor of, rather than against, Donald Trump.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
[your grammar’s a bit muddled here] Well, for one thing probably different employees but yes **”naked partisan bias”* is the exact accusation. ““Bent over backwards not to ban them…based on the unfair double standards I have invented” Yeah, that bit. The copycat account didn’t violate TOS, either, but it did come afoul of Naked political bias and didn’t have the benefit of being famous.
Except that’s not true. Harder to apply double standards in the limelight.
Re: Re: Re:5
For what reason, then, was that account suspended despite it being nothing more than a clearly labelled mirror of tweets from Donald Trump? If Twitter’s bias was as naked and partisan in favor of “the left” as you claim it was, for what reason didn’t Trump himself—the man who actually made the tweets that account mirrored verbatim—receive those suspensions?
The double standard was applied in the limelight, though. And it was applied in favor of Trump. He posted the words that the mirror account reposted verbatim. But he didn’t get suspended—the mirror account did. And other than to note that Trump was being treated with kid gloves for the same speech that got the mirror account suspended, nobody really cared about the mirror account all that much because Trump’s account was always visible and available prior to his ban.
You seem to think that suspending the mirror account was a worthwhile substitution to suspending Trump. But that would only be true if the mirror account was equally as popular than Trump’s, which it wasn’t. Nobody paid any real attention to it until it started eating suspensions for repeating Trump’s posts verbatim. Again: If the bias was as naked and partisan against Trump/conservatives as you believe it was, for what reason did the mirror account eat the suspensions instead of Trump?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Naked Partisan Bias
You’re just repeating the same thing, there’s no new argument in there, so you get the same answers. You’re acting as if it’s some logical conundrum, but it obviously isn’t.
If they were aware the account was just copying Trump, why would they treat it differently, exposing their bias (in either direction)? Answer: They didn’t. They treated it as any other conservative account and banned it based on their own biases, rather than any actual TOS violation.
Nope, not what I said at all, reading comp fail on your part.
Re: Re: Re:7
Again: If the bias was as naked and partisan as you claim, suspending Donald Trump would’ve been what happened. But that happened to an account set up to mirror his tweets verbatim as an experiment to see whether it would get suspended for directly repeating his speech.
Donald Trump’s account was a conservative account. Donald Trump’s speech ran afoul of the TOS on multiple occasions, as proven by the mirror account being suspended multiple times. For what reason did Twitter continually refuse to punish Donald Trump, if not for a pro-conservative bias?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Incorrect.
Well, no, actually, but he sure did say things liberals hated.
Incorrect
Because they felt prohibited from unleashing their liberal bias by the public’s attention. (they did eventually)
I really did lay all this out, you just don’t read so good.
Re: Re: Re:9
If that were true, that would mean they were afraid of running afoul of conservative anger—the same kind of anger that fueled the insurrection—and thus showed a greater bias in favor of conservative politicians and pundits by refusing to suspend or ban them for content that would net the average user a similar punishment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
No. Just no on everything there on. You are attempting to configure a string of “therefores” that simply don’t exist.
I’m really not obligated to argue against your fantasy constructions.
Re: Re: Re:11
No, I’m not.
Conservative politicians and pundits have spent years (and are still working on) convincing the conservative/right-wing voting base that Big Media, Big Tech, and Big [x]-es in general were(/are) all dominated by lefties. Those mean Bigs were(/are) all kinds of in the bag for Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism and totally against Good Ol’ Fashioned Traditional Conservative Values™. Why, a conservative couldn’t(/can’t) even express a simple Conservative Idea™—you know the ones—on social media without getting ultra-super-hyper-turbo banned! As a result, a significant number of the people within that voting base—as well as the politicians and pundits themselves—came to believe, without any real evidence, that Twitter (amongst other companies) had a bias against conservatives/right-wingers for expressing even the most benign of opinions.
At the top of this “anti–Big” pyramid of hate stood Donald Trump, who kept proclaiming his hatred of the Bigs on a regular basis (with the help of those same Bigs, ironically enough). His rallies sometimes featured violence, and his fans were known to be fervently angry in re: “the libs”. This culminated in violence such as the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the deadly white supremacist rally-turned-riot in Charlottesville, and the insurrection at the Capitol.
Twitter (as well as Facebook) saw the obvious: The chance of violence being visited upon Twitter employees was not-zero if the company did anything to piss off conservative politicians and pundits. For whatever political bias individual Twitter employees may have had, the company as a broader entity had a different bias: “Keep conservatives as happy as possible even if it means ignoring TOS violations.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
“all my dystopian shit is justified cuz you republicans are just so scwary”
Is the half naked guy with the buffalo horns in the room with you right now? Does the little old lady hawunt your dreams? What about that very cherry guy with the podium?
No, you actual moron, that they were scared of banning Trump because that would expose their hypocrisy, no that does mean they were being over kind to all conservatives by extension. Very much the opposite.
Re: Re: Re:13
dude just take your L
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Why? I won. You’re a science denier.
Because you’re dumb, you made me do some googling. Turns out there’s LOTS of these studies (“Estimates”), prevailing narrative be damned. Looks like we’re overcounting covid deaths by not quite double.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3622402-mandatory-hospital-screenings-fuel-inaccurate-covid-death-counts/
Take the L, Stephen.
Re: Re: Re:15 Take *your* L bro
“Take the L…’
Sorry bro that’s copyrighted by me.
Chalk up another loss for bratty matty.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
OK, proove you were the first to use it.
Meanwhile Imma point out to those facts and figures you’re ignoring.
Re: Re: Re:17
I’ll prove it just as soon as you learn the difference between fact and opinion bro.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18
Well the math definitely isn’t “opinion”.
Re: Re: Re:15
Seriously dude, you are linking to an opinion piece and using it as fact?
How gullible are you?
Take the L and swallow the load dude, you’ve earned it!
Re: Re: Re:9 You want it both ways so bad
Matt, you’re contradicting yourself. You want to assert that Twitter had such a liberal anti-Trump bias they wanted to censor Trump and conservatives, but then you say they felt they couldn’t because he was “too public” so they went after the copycat instead. If you want to suppress speech, why would you go after the account that had no reach? So which is it, Matt?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Just because you didn’t understand doesn’t mean I’m contradicting myself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
You are seriously asking why bullies pick on kids who are too small to fight back?
lol
Re: Re: Re:11
you are seriously confused between a public house and public housing.
lol
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Are you seriously sucking the dick of a “tech expert” who doesn’t understand the difference between owning a spectrum and owning a spectrum license.
Re: Re: Re:13
I never said anything about a spectrum license… I am going to continually post about how you were too fucking stupid to know the difference between a public house and public housing.
And add to the fact that I told you over and over again that the TexasAG has no means available to him, must carry laws or otherwise, that could force DirecTV to carry OAN.
And guess what, it didn’t happen so therefore, again, I am right and you are a fucking moron.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
“And add to the fact that I told you over and over again that the TexasAG has no means available to him, must carry laws or otherwise, that could force DirecTV to carry OAN.”
Funny that’s the exact same thread what Mike said DishNetwork owns their spectrum lol
But you dont really fucking care that the owner of TechdDirt doesn’t know how spectrums work do you?
Nope you are just a complete and total fucking hack!
Re: Re: Re:15
Hey Chozen, your boys at OAN took the L. When are you going to learn how to do it like they did?
Re: Re: Re:15
I didn’t say it so what’s your point in bringing up Mike.
But if you want to say that, I will point out that owning and leasing a spectrum license is much closer together in terms of what they mean than a public house and public housing. One serves drinks and the other is for government owned housing.
So you still are wrong, take the L dude, I told you over and over again that the Texas AG has no “must carry” law that it could have used to force DirecTV to carry OAN.
Re: Re: Re:11
You would speak from a wealth of experience, except that instead of picking on the small kids you managed to pick on the principal’s kids, then wonder why you keep getting Ls handed to you.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, I miss the good old days of Trump giving out his medical shit nuggets during Covid, and his morons doing everything they could to try and prove it was no big deal or some hoax.
I’m looking forward to fewer guardrails for you people next time. It wasn’t the smart people eating horse dewormer, or deliberately getting infected to show how free they were.
Now that Musk will allow freeze peach to flourish, it’s only a matter of time before you simps are tricked once again into competing for Darwin Awards.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
See, this is funny, cuz Ivermectin is routinely prescribed for humans. It’s not “horse dewormer” any more than Benadryl is canine anti-anxiety medication
I think it’s real funny you think you know science better than I do. Not even “The Science”
Re: Re: Re:5
As an agent against parasites, and not for Covid, hence people using real horse dewormer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
It’s actually a well known medical fact that many anti-paristics have a weak, but general anti-viral effect. (yes, quinine and hydroxychloroquine which is a derivative, too) The mechanism isn’t understood but the effect has been noted for many decades.
Seriously, I know the science better than you.
Re: Re: Re:7
But do you know the science better than the doctors who have found that Ivermectin had no useful effect against Covid?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
or the doctors who think it is?
Good thing we never never see conflicting studies come out, right?
It’s quite possible the effect is negligible, it was never going to be more than “weak”. But calling it “horse dewormer” is super dumb.
Re: Re: Re:9
But calling it “horse dewormer” is super dumb.
And taking an actual horse dewormer because somebody on the Nineteen suggested it was useful against Covid is even dumber.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
no idea what “on the 19” is, but again, prescribed by actual doctors, for humans.
Re: Re: Re:9
The craziest thing about this whole ivermectin is that you people followed baseless advice like sheep.
And how do you square the fact that the company that developed and produces ivermectin has said directly that it has no effectiveness against covid-19.
How many times did you inject yourself with disinfectant?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Because that’s not what it was FDA approved for. They are actually TIGHTLY restricted in what they can say. It’s caused “off-label” usage.
Fuck you’re ignorant.
Re: Re: Re:11
And that’s why you idiots cleared the shelves at all the feed stores nationwide. So you could eat “off label” horse paste.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
literally not how ANY of that works. Damn
Re: Re: Re:13
Keep chugging that ivermectin, Matty. Maybe one day Trump will reward you for your devotion. If you’re lucky he might even exhale in your general direction while struggling to remember who you are.
Re: Re: Re:13
How did it taste bro?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Tasty like Chozen, but that’s something you libs would never be able to appreciate.
You keep taking the L while I keep taking the D.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15
I made this comment. If you flag it, you’re homophobic!
Re: Re: Re:9
“calling it “horse dewormer” is super dumb”
That was mockery of the people taking it against medical advice, not because people thought that’s all it was.
In reality, early in the pandemic, everything was being tried as a possible treatment until vaccines were available. Ivermectin was one of those that showed some early promise. However, on further examination it was not suitable, and in fact required super high doses to have any effect. IIRC, some of the early meta analysis was skewed by success in countries with high rates of parasitic infection – that is, Ivermectin helped you battle COVID if you weren’t also battling parasites, but that means it was effective at its intended use, not a miracle cure for other things.
So, why “horse paste”? Well, actual doctors refused to prescribe the unproven medicine to people just because they read that it was effective on Twitter. People who swallowed the misinformation, or who believed in some conspiracy theories by “big pharma” to sell vaccines (even though it’s made by the #4 pharma company) decided that they knew better than doctors, and went to feed stores to buy the veterinary formulation largely made for horses. They thought they were being clever, but in fact all they were doing was harming themselves, and ensuring that there was less available for its actual intended use.
The simple fact is, Trump believed and spread yet another set of misinformation, to the point where the drug’s manufacturer had to come out and tell people not to take it (and, surely, even you know you’ve messed up when “big pharma” is asking you not to give them money). The “horse dewormer” is mocking the people who went to feed stores instead of human doctors, especially after vaccines and other safer treatment were available and known to be more effective.
If you want to complain about the term “horse paste”, consider why people say it and its intended target. Ivermectin is a fantastic drug for treating parasitic infection. It has zero proven effect on COVID in people not infected by parasites. If you want to continue to claim it does despite all the studies and evidence to the contrary, you’ll be mocked with the horse paste meme, because you’re displaying the same logic and aversion to facts as the people who started eating horse paste.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
The vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor. Basically everything you said after that was invalid.
I get it, you hate Trump a whole lot, but TDS isn’t an argument. “Big Pharma” is actually essentially forced to say certain things by the FDA, actually. Man, you just don’t know very much.
Re: Re: Re:11
Then why were farm stores running out of their horse dewormer — ivermectin?
Somewhere along the line, you people decided you knew more than most doctors and since a normal doctor wouldn’t just give out scripts for ivermectin, therefore, if you wanted it, you had to procure it by other means… ergo, you bought horse dewormer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
I didn’t say everyone got it from their doctor.
Calling it “horse dewormer” is super dumb. It’s a real medication for humans. Drugs that work on humans work on other mammals too. Referring to it by one of those other drugs is just you uneducated fucks being dumb.
Re: Re: Re:13
Not when what you are buying is compounded for deworming horses. No medicine is supplied as a pure chemical, but rather compounded with buffers and fillers, and with an active ingredient level suited to the species it is intended for.
Re: Re: Re:14
“Not when what you are buying is compounded for deworming horses”
Nobody minds that. The mockery is simply about the fact that some people believed misinformation about it, then when human doctors refused to give it to them, they raided feed stores.
In actual fact, most would approve extra supplies to countries that have higher levels of parasitic infection since it’s clear that fighting COVID is easier if you don’t also have other infections. It’s the weirdos who think that taking a big pharma drug because they’re afraid of a big pharma drug that area problem (as they complain about fantasy mRNA effects despite non-mRNA vaccines being aviable) who are the bigger problem.
Re: Re: Re:13
You refusing to realize that even though ivermectin can be prescribed to humans, there is also ivermectin used as a horse dewormer.
Which one to you think people picked up from their local farm and ag store?
Tell me who is the one being fucking dumb because it sure as hell isn’t me.
Re: Re: Re:14
“You refusing to realize that even though ivermectin can be prescribed to humans, there is also ivermectin used as a horse dewormer.”
Indeed, nobody is mocking the people who get a prescription for the human version, especially in countries where parasitic infections are common. It’s only the first world residents who rejected other proven drugs and vaccines then raided veterinary stores who are mocked. Especially if they whine about “big pharma” while buying animal drugs from a big pharma company who told them not to buy them.
Re: Re: Re:13
“Calling it “horse dewormer” is super dumb.”
Again, no. It’s accurate, as is calling it “human dewormer”.
What’s dumb is calling it “miracle cure for COVID in humans not infected by parasites”, especially if you use that description to detract from other known medications.
You might wish to stop complaining about the terms used to mock you, and consider why the US was disproportionately affected by the pandemic and why red states that politicised basic prevention experienced higher levels of infection and mortatlity.
Re: Re: Re:11
“The vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor”
I doubt thats true, but those aren’t the people mocked. If a doctor prescribed it, that’s on them. If someone went to feed store after they were told not, they’re an idiot.
““Big Pharma” is actually essentially forced to say certain things by the FDA”
OK.. Are they wrong, or are you saying that when the people who made Ivermectin said “stop taking unprescribed horse paste because doctors won’t prescribe it” the FDA made them?
Re: Re: Re:11
“The vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor”
I’d love to see numbers given that the drug manufacturer told people not to buy it. But, I won’t mock the people who were prescribed it. Only the people who decided to eat animal paste after they chose to believe a bankrupt con artist instead of doctors.
“I get it, you hate Trump a whole lot, but TDS isn’t an argument. “Big Pharma” is actually essentially forced to say certain things by the FDA, actually. Man, you just don’t know very much.”
That’s a weird non-sequitur bunch of words. But, let’s take them a little at a time…
“TDS” seems to be term used to pretend that there’s no valid criticism of Trump, and is a weak “no U” retort to when people used similar terms to mock people who attacked Clinton and Obama during their terms. In reality, there’s a lot of very reasonable reasons to criticise Trump’s term in office. ore supported by evidence. None provided to right-leaning outlets under normal circumstances, but available here if you ask.
“Big Pharma” forced to say things by the FDA? Well… yeah? They would sell you a caffeine pill for $1200 if they could get away with it. Which they can’t in most places in the world. They’ll bombard you with ads about prescription drugs that are illegal in most places, etc.
“Man, you just don’t know very much.”
As others have said, you should apply to IMAX. Your ability to project is pretty good.
Re: Re: Re:7
“Seriously, I know the science better than you.”
Would you look at that? Bratty Matty Esq. also turns out to be an Internet Doctor as well.
What are the chances?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
“As an agent against parasites”
Nope its most commonly use is to treat lupus you fucking moron.
Re: Re: Re:7
You are confusing drugs advocated by non medical people for treating Covid., It is Hydroxychloroquine that is used against Lupus, and also proven to be useless against Covid.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
If you want me to know what you are taking about stop flagging every post you odnt agree with. You make a mockery of Mike’s “bad faith actor” argument.
Re: Re: Re:9
I never flag people that I don’t agree with, I flag people because that act like childish fucking assholes, and you are a prime example of one.
Re: Re: Re:9
Or you could man up and read every flagged post, which you already do to find out which Matthew Bennett post you need to twist your panties in self-righteous outrage over.
Re: Re: Re:5
See, this is funny, cuz Ivermectin is routinely prescribed for humans.
Not in the strength sold at Agway. But sure.
It’s not “horse dewormer” any more than Benadryl is canine anti-anxiety medication
The stuff from Agway is. That’s the stuff you fools were eating because Ivermectin wasn’t a treatment for Covid. Probably because we don’t have the same diet of river water than people in Latin America, where the thought that people could use it originated from.
But like I said – you tards are entertaining! There’s no cause too stupid for you to donate to, no miracle cure that’s too idiotic to try (especially for a made-up hoax virus that’s just like the flu).
One might ask (I did, it’s doubtful you would) why you wouldn’t bother treating a flu-like virus with flu medicine, instead of eating stuff that gives you the shits. But then again, I like watching you people do stupid things to yourselves.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Why tf are you talking about Agway?
You understand real doctors prescribed this stuff, right? To people. Based on their medical knowledge. An awful lot of anti-parisitics have been shown to have an anti-viral effect. The effect is not understood, but well documented.
Fucking liberals. Would tell Ben Carson he doesn’t know anything about brain surgery.
Re: Re: Re:7
Let’s see if all these facts at once will make Matthew go anaphylactic:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/largest-trial-to-date-finds-ivermectin-is-worthless-against-covid/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/more-people-are-poisoning-themselves-with-horse-deworming-drug-to-thwart-covid/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/forced-use-of-horse-dewormer-on-covid-patient-overturned-by-ohio-judge/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
I think it’s interesting that you think that’s a refutation of what I said. Did you misunderstand what I said, what you cited, or both?
Re: Re: Re:9
You keep getting angry that people who gorged on ivermectin are getting insulted. Not much else of substance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Against voltage or temperature?
Fun fact: about 60-70% of metals thermal conductivity is based upon the shared electron shell, i.e. what makes it a metal and means electrical and thermal conductivity is highly correlated but not exactly linearly and that only holds true for metals.
All of that has nothing to do with anything, except that I know more than you, natively. Not actually natively, of course, when born I knew almost nothing, but I mean intrinsically, as a part of who I am, I know how some things work.
But you don’t. So you make jokes about Ivermectin you don’t understand.
Re: Re: Re:11
Although, I actually do know more than you!
(See how this works, I can play this game too!)
Re: Re: Re:7
You do understand that people buying and using the veterinary formula on themselves was an actual thing, to the extent that feed stores like agway ran short of the drug. The reason why people mocked ivermectin as horse dewormer, was that people were actually taking horse dewormer, and doing so without a doctor’s involvement.
And that’s of course not to mention cases like the prison doc in LA who decided to give dangerously high doses to his captive patients without knowledge or consent, and then was lauded for his “research” by the covid quacks like those on parade on the Reawaken America tour.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Sure, but the vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor.
No, the “reason why” is because liberals are largely ignorant and hateful little shits.
Re: Re: Re:9
Your first point rather undermines your second, because if doctors were prescribing it why were people using a horse dewormer?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
It wouldn’t if you were smarter.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Good old boys been using vet meds for yours you fucking arrogant dumbass. Veterinary meds, equine especially, are arguably higher quality than human.
KineticGothic understand this you arrogant piece of shit. YOUR LIFE IS WORTH LESS THAN A RACE HORSE. An equine drug manufacture will be paying more in damages if they kill a racehorse than a human drug manufacture will be paying if they kill your worthless ass.
Your life is not as valued by our society as that of a race horse and don’t you ever fucking forget it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Small wonder you remember it.
Re: Re: Re:6
And no medical advice that they will not go against.
Re: Re: Re:5 Bratty Matty has taken a record amount of L's in ths thread
“It’s not “horse dewormer…”
https://www.equineperformance.com.au/equimec
Re: Re: Re:5
In the real worpd: there is no mechanism by which Ivermectin can help a Covid patient who doesn’t also have worms.
Re: Re: Re:6
Most people only heard of Ivermectin / Hydroxychloroquine because of one group of a right-wing dark money group trying to get rich on prescription grifting.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Again, anti-parasitics are well known (in general) to have a weak anti-viral effect. No one knows the mechanism, but it’s well documented. SO the mechanism exists.
They’re also quite cheap. No one was getting rich off of it. Paxlovid, on the other hand, is insanely expensive, so if you wanted to make your argument based on profit conspiracy theories, it would go the other way.
You have to be uniquely ignorant (or rabid) to think you’re making a point here.
Re: Re: Re:8
“Again, anti-parasitics are well known (in general) to have a weak anti-viral effect”
The key here being “weak”. There’s no evidence that it’s effective against COVID specifically, and the early studies that said it did have either been retracted or required an unsafely high dosage. What is proven to have a much more beneficial effect is vaccines. Which is why people were mocked because they ignored doctors’ advice to get vaccinated and turn to horse paste when they couldn’t get doctors to prescribe ineffective treatment because they believed in online disinformation campaigns.
“No one was getting rich off of it”
Especially because the manufacturer came out and explicitly told people not to take it to treat COVID. The people running the disinformation campaigns to spread fear about vaccines, etc., do seem to be raking it in.
“You have to be uniquely ignorant (or rabid) to think you’re making a point here.”
His point appears to be that, as doctors and the drug manufacturer have confirmed, Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.
Seriously, do you have a different dictionary to everyone else? You seem to keep claiming that “ignorance” and “believing documented, proven facts” are synonyms for some reason.
Re: Re: Re:9
Someone who, unlike Matthew, is capable of thinking logically would understand that no, a mechanism for effectiveness doesn’t really exist when there’s conclusively proven to be no effectiveness.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Well, no, they’re essentially mandated to say that by the FDA. And they don’t say “Is not effective” they say “is not clinically proven”.
Your ignorance isn’t an argument.
That remains true
Re: Re: Re:10
“Well, no, they’re essentially mandated to say that by the FDA. And they don’t say “Is not effective” they say “is not clinically proven”.”
OK. So, people who ignored that advice and said “I’ll ignore that and raid the horse medication” are still mocked. Especially since the US still had way more deaths, and other problems than places that used masks and vaccines. Look at the differences between places that politicised basic healthcare and those that didn’t… it should be rather depressing. At least with me personally, I recall minimum wage Americans workers being threatened with violence for requesting for basic mask and social distancing during a time where infection rates were so low where I am that the demands were being lifted. As in, while the “freedumb” people were threatening to shoot people for asking to mask up those of us who already did with almost completely free from the need.
“That remains true”
That you’re uniquely ignorant? Of course.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
I remember when the left were handing out academy awards to a movie about right to try.
You really are piece of shit.
Re: Re: Re:12
Projection at its finest!
Re: Re: Re:7
Note: Here are the frauds Matthew the robot sheep defends:
https://time.com/6092368/americas-frontline-doctors-covid-19-misinformation/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Oh yeah, a hyperbolic Time articles trying to treat anecdotes as data. You sure got me!
Re: Re: Re:
Especially when that “conservative thought” includes racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia and just plain ol’ bigotry.
But you people will rarely admit that the above examples of “conservative thought” is what is being banned, and at the same will never admin what specific conservative thoughts are being banned.
Chances are, “conservative thoughts” about lower taxes, smaller government, etc are not the thoughts being banned.
So tell us Matthew, what exactly are the “conservative thoughts” that are being banned?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Liberals will just claim that about any “cultural war” issue. Don’t want sex-ed taught to 6 year olds? “You must hate gay people!” Doiesn’t matter if it’s true.
Oh, you haven’t heard? Small government is racist, too. (https://www.politicsnc.com/small-government-politics-requires-white-racism/) Seriously, you guys will do this with anything.
I’m a libertarian, and to be honest small government less taxes (and less government censorship by proxy) are my main hobby horses. I’m quite supportive of people wanting to live as the other gender. But I am unwilling to pretend that means they are in all ways the same as the other gender. Men can’t get pregnant, and biological men joining women’s sports largely invalidates those sports. (in boxing it’s real dangerous and has come up a few times, even volleyball) Has huge implications for prisons and women’s shelters. Yet pointing that out would be called “transphobia” and get me banned.
Re: Re: Re:3
When people bring up this canard, it tends to serve a double purpose:
The funny thing is, teaching (age-appropriate) sex ed to children would be more likely to help them recognize if someone is sexually abusing them than literally anything else you can imagine. I would think that’s a good thing, but what do I know, I’m just one of those icky queer f⸻ts you like to complain about.
Ah, so you’re a conservative who knows what the age of consent is in all 50 states.
Can you cite anyone who has ever been suspended or banned from Twitter for expressing those opinions?
You’re not transphobic because you’re pointing out some serious issues with a changing landscape in re: gender identities. We can have those discussions without being disrespectful of trans people. You’re transphobic because you continue to disrespect and demonize trans people, apparently under the assumption that less than 1% of the U.S. population should receive primary (if not exclusive) blame for being the root cause of society’s many problems. That is the first step down a short road to the kind of thinking that leads to some dark fucking ideas about “solutions” to a “question” about a group of marginalized people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, correct. No, “Uncle shouldn’t touch you in your no-no places” is not “sex-ed” nor at all what the bill was about.
Oh, hey, I’m so glad I have your permission to have opinions! (not how free speech works, btw)
Oh wait, never mind.
[Real talk] Try to be serious for a second, when I have I EVER said something that would suggest that? [/Real Talk]
[snark]Banning “misgendering” was definitely to blame for getting Bablyon Bee suspended (seriously, not most of what they write about) which got Musk to buy Twitter, so……
Re: Re: Re:5
No, that is an age-appropriate form of sex ed, even if it might not be directly called sex ed.
I never said you couldn’t have opinions. But you seem to want to express an opinion without any criticism or critique.
If I had the time, energy, and desire to actually go back through the past month or two of articles, unhide all your comments, and give them a proper perusal, I’m sure I could find something. But since I won’t because even I’m not that desperate to win a meaningless Internet slapfight with a shithead like you, it’s a safe assumption that your willingness to shittalk queer people extends to trans people—and likely with far more fervor.
Says a lot that Musk figuratively burned billions upon billions of his own personal wealth and completely fucked over Twitter’s ability to court a lot of major advertisers in the pursuit of unbanning an unfunny “satire” site that was banned for being shitty towards trans people.
None of it is good, but it does say a lot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
OK, I don’t care about your definitional argument. It’s not what’s banned by the bill and certainly not anything conservatives have a problem with being taught.
Well that’s telling, actually. You can’t think of anything (which you could if I had actually said anything of the sort) ….but given enough time you think you could find something you could “interpret” to be such. This is generally my experience with liberals, they’ll find something they can misinterpret if they try hard enough.
Oh? You can’t think of a time I said anything like that either, can you? Look, dude, this isn’t OK. You can’t just throw accusations like that as if they don’t matter and you don’t have to justify them, that’s actually the whole fucking problem.
An adult would admit I’d said nothing of the sort.
Of course I disagree with most of that characterization but it’s almost as if people used to say, “I may hate what you say, but I will defend until death your right to say it” with pride. Seriously, these principles matter. BB and Musk offends you? I honestly think that’s fucking silly but so what? You’re offended! Move on. If you think the right response is to kick them off the internet something is wrong with you.
Re: Re: Re:7
…says the guy who keeps coming back to a blog he hates so he can argue with people he despises only because he takes pleasure in trying to make people as miserable as possible for the sake of feeling like he’s accomplished something meaningful by “owning the libs”.
Re: Re: Re:7
And yet, here you are.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
well because he’s wrong
Re: Re: Re:9
You’re offended! Move on.
Except you’ve already indicated that you won’t, and genuinely think that being an annoying pissnugget will somehow convince anyone otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:9
Yes, yes, someone is wrong on the Internet. Go somewhere else and harass them, dipshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
I know, it really bothers me. Please stop.
Re: Re: Re:11
You really should stop hitting yourself. It’s only a matter of time before you start making the Explore With Us channel.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
And many more…
Re: Re: Re:3
So, why don’t you give us some concrete exampled of people being banned because of their “conservative thought”
Just listing out what “you” think is getting people banned doesn’t really mean that people are actually getting banned for those reasons…
So again, how about some real-world concrete examples of people being banned for nothing more than “conservative thought.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Shadowbanned, much more often, but the twitter files has many examples.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is an easy example for the much more mild example questioning school lockdowns and pointing out they would harm children’s development.
Re: Re: Re:5
What’s so funny about that statement is now your political comrades are suggesting that public schools are too “woke” (I dare you to give us your definition of woke) and that parents just start homeschooling their children.
So what is it, children learning at home is harmful to their development, or children are not harmed by home schooling and that should be the norm?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
What’s fascinating is you think that’s a contradiction. Committing to homeschooling is far different (and requires a lot of sacrifices) than sticking with a school system that just isn’t doing it’s job.
Re: Re: Re:7
It’s hard for that system to do its job when politicians routinely cut its budget in favor of funding other institutions (like the police). And I should note that Republicans have a special hatred for public education—which is why destroying it in any way possible has been one of their pet projects for a long goddamn time.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
It mostly didn’t do it’s job because of teacher’s unions and political partisanship. You’ll be interested to know that both teacher’s pay and academic performance have almost no correlation with funding levels. All schools do with more money is hire more administrative bloat, still be fucking useless.
Tell you what: We can make us BOTH happy and just privatize the whole thing. No no, I still want poor kids to get an education, vouchers for everyone!
Re: Re: Re:9
I don’t think we’ll be taking education advice from you, chucklenut.
Re: Re: Re:5
Which does more harm to children, losing a bit of education, or losing parents, grandparents aunts or uncles. While Covid may not be a lesser danger to children, they can pass it on to those who will suffer badly, or be killed by it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Those are not “conservative thoughts”, those are the grossly exaggerated or straight-up fantastical thoughts of Tucker Carlson fans, Facebook addicts and conspiracy nuts.
Re: Re: Re:3
Shutting down the economy for a mostly-survivable flu was stupid and used to advance the destruction of the country by Democrats.
Too bad Trump was such a powerless impotent douche who surrounded himself with incompetents who chose to do nothing about it. You guys voted for him, I didn’t.
Criticizing actions of the Chinese government.
Are you now supportive of the Chinese government?
Criticizing actions of the Democrat Party voting base or the Burn, Loot, Murder (BLM) “protests”.
Still butthurt about not taking the Capitol on 1/6, huh?
Exposing the mutilation of children and the virtue signalling of support for transgenderism.
Uh-huh. You’re so worried that you’re not masculine enough for your kids, aren’t you?
Contradicting anything the CDC or WHO says about Covid, whether they have said it in the past or not.
Hey, you guys eat your aquarium cleaner, horse dewormer, whatever. That was entertaining as all fuck for me – watching you people try and fail, sometimes with diarrhea other times with a ventilator tube shoved down your throat. What’s even funnier is that none of you were smart enough to see how your own constituents dying might affect your voting bloc. Good times!
Anything about “died suddenly” or its causes.
Show me where on the doll the obituary touched you.
Exposing criminal activity of Democrat politicians.
That’s the funniest of all. You ran on ‘Lock her up!’ – and didn’t. You actually didn’t lock anyone up, except members of your own party. But that counts for something!
Re: Re: Re:4
Criticizing the Chinese government is such a fucking non-point that it’s amusing anyone thought the Democrats of all people would be hiding that. There is a touch of irony, though, that now we’ve completely come full circle in the pandemic, in that now China is pissing and moaning about other countries testing their citizens. We’ve come full circle since 2020 and even now China wants to downplay their shitshow.
Consider one of Trump’s explanations for the Mar-a-Lago raid – he claimed that they were looking for Hilary’s emails. Which would suggest that he was holding onto them, and didn’t use them in his four years of presidency to actually do something about them. It’s embarrassing that he thought this was a good look.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
See, this is funny, cuz I’ve seen people claim it’s somehow racist to criticize China. Got their own mini-holocaust going on over there, but how dare you call the CCP evil!
……holy fuck, you realize that that was a joke, right? Because what Hillary did was so much worse than anything Trump or Biden did.
Re: Re: Re:6
And I’ve seen monkeys come flying out of your asshole.
See, I can play that game too!
Re: Re: Re:6
Because what Hillary did was so much worse than anything Trump or Biden did.
Perhaps someone should have campaigned on locking her up. I bet a guy like that would win, and once he’s in there, he can lock her up once and for all instead of just complaining about her.
That would take care of Hillary, and all of her faults. If only someone had the balls to actually do it.
Re: Re: Re:7
It really is quite spectacular that for a brief moment, Trump held the power to do exactly that – but squandered his four years trying to fuck over other women instead.
Re: Re: Re:3
Interesting that there is absolutely zero thought involved in any of your bullet points.
Re: Re:
And let’s not forget about Republicans whining about their email getting filtered more often than Democrats’ email.
oh… wait, that wasn’t true either.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
“Not provable in court” is not the same as “did not happen”….and this wasn’t even a court suit, just a ruling by an FEC coming off a democratic administration. The statistics were pretty clearly on the RNC’s side.
But in this case we have smoking gun emails and chats and the rather obvious fact that everyone’s (conservative) follow accounts changed rather dramatically after Musk’s take over. Shadow bans were a fact.
Re: Re: Re:2
One delivery of a flag for a trollish asshole.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Are you saying I made a point (but you hate that), or does “flag” have some other connotation I’m not familiar with here?
Re: Re: Re:4
Have…have you literally not seen the flag icon that’s visible on every comment?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Oh, so he was saying he was flagging me for being right: That checks out.
Re: Re: Re:6
I guess you don’t have much reading comprehension:
What part of that statement do you not understand?
Re: Re: Re:7
The part where he thinks he’s a brave truth-teller telling truths to the liars and the crooks and the crooked liars of the ultra-far-left and their allies in the National Antifa Polycule instead of an asshole.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Aww, you get me.
(but then why did you pretend I’m some sorta anti-gay ant-trans crusader earlier?)
Re: Re: Re:9
I didn’t. You may not be as loud and obnoxious about it as the TERFs, but you still have far, far, far more in common with that dipshit exterminationist Hyman Rosen than you do with a queer person like me.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Oh yeah you did
and
Don’t lie about what you just said. Not only did I give no justification to say either of those things but I think they fit the description of “some sorta anti-gay ant-trans crusader”. (Cue Stephen trying to weasel about what the definition of “is” is.)
Well, I wouldn’t be treating you equally if I didn’t “shit talk” you, on a personal level (not because you are gay) for playing the “queer card” (i.e. trying to use victimhood status as a defense in an argument where that status was not attacked) That is some weak ass shit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
You’re just angry because us queers are more fabulous than you and better at you at winning women over. Your boy Musk is so bad at dating women they’d rather fuck each other than carry his toxic sperm again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
bro, be as fabulous as you want, live your best life. The women who are interested in you aren’t gonna to be into me and vice versa, we’ll be OK. Also I’ve been married for a billion years so it’s all kinda null.
Also I think Musk has 9 kids? He’s doing OK, depends on what you want in life. Personally I want to spend more time with my kids but Musk seems a kinda “married to his job” sorta guy.
I mostly get mad at stupidity tbh.
Re: Re: Re:13
Holy shit, you must be absolutely furious with yourself, then.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Ahhh, the old “I know you are but what am I?” retort.
Are you still in grade school?
Re: Re: Re:15
Sure am. That’s how I know I’m your intellectual superior.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
You can’t even understand basic math.
Re: Re: Re:17
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
Re: Re: Re:17
I guess you would be the authority on not understanding things.
Re: Re: Re:9
You still haven’t answered what part of:
you fail to understand.
If you want me to, I can walk you through that sentence word by word and explain what they mean if you need any help.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
I’m sorry, your promise to flag people solely on ideological affiliation actually confused me. I know it happens, I just didn’t expect someone to admit to it.
Re: Re: Re:11
How much horse paste did you swallow to make you this fucking stupid bro.
Re: Re: Re:12
Not enough, since he’s still posting.
Re: Re: Re:11
Yeah, I didn’t realize “trollish asshole” was an ideological affiliation nowadays. Certainly explains a lot.
You learn something new every day.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
it’s a hobby maybe
Re: Re: Re:13
Masochism isn’t a hobby.
Re: Re: Re:6
Bro just take the L.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’m winning
Re: Re: Re:8
Considering how often your posts are flagged and hidden, looks more like losing since nobody can see your posts without a bit of extra effort.
Hell, I’ve shot you down multiple times in the last few posts alone!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
look how proud you are of your regression. Amazing
Re: Re: Re:10
Just take the L, loser.
Re: Re: Re:10
You can make your humiliation stop any time loser.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Why? I won. Conclusively.
Re: Re: Re:12
You mean lost conclusively.
Considering my posts are quite often marked with the insightful badge, and none of yours are…
And none of my posts are hidden, and almost all of your posts are hidden…
I would say that I have conclusively and convincingly won over your sorry loser ass.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
nothing about that was an argument nor logic
Re: Re: Re:14
And another word to the list of words you have no fucking clue what they mean.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15
you did twice? Why?
Re: Re: Re:16
Did what twice?
Re: Re: Re:8
For someone who’s “winning” you sure bitch and piss and moan a lot about being flagged.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Well, I find it strange and funny. I obviously shouldn’t whine about it, since ALL of you see my comments and ALL of you seem super desperate to respond with your useless, infantile opinions. But still.
Re: Re: Re:10
And yet, here you are.
This might surprise you, but Musk, Santos and Trump aren’t going to kiss you better for choosing to martyr yourself like this.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
That is a VERY random collection of names. Like there’s basically nothing in common between the 3 of them.
Re: Re: Re:12
They’re all assholes whose balls you regularly juggle in your mouth.
Re: Re: Re:8
“I’m winning” says the loser chalking up another L.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
That’s circular
Re: Re: Re:10
Circular is the shape of your backdoor after Chozen’s done with it.
Re: Re: Re:8
You misspelled “whining.”
Re: Re: Re:6
… said nobody literate, ever.
Or you could, you know, just enforce the first amendment...
In General—An employee may not —
use the employee’s official authority or influence to advocate that any third party, including a private entity, take any action to censor any speech.
One need only look back a week or so to see how trivial that would be to abuse as several people(some more than others) have been insisting that ‘notifying a platform of potential TOS violations’ counts as ‘censorship’, going back farther you’ve got people arguing that adding warnings and corrections to comments counts as ‘censorship’, I’ve no doubt that anti-vaxxers and Big Lie supporters would argue that the government saying ‘hey it might be a good idea if you didn’t host something that would get people killed and/or undermine democracy itself’ would count as ‘censorship’…
It might sound good at first glance, and it’s certainly tamer than what might be expected from the GOP at this point but there are just so many ways I could see this going wrong and/or being misused that ‘just punish those that violate the first amendment that already exists’ still seems like a much better option.
Re: It's a total mess
This gets to the heart of the problem with this bill. It is so vague as to make it impossible for a government employee to even say “Hey, you’re hosting illegal content, you need to take that down.”
Hell, let’s just go right to a Hunter Biden situation: let’s say a sitting member of Congress gets hacked and has their dick pic put up on Twitter. Are they seriously not allowed to ask Twitter to take it down, lest they fall afoul of this law? What if one of their personal staff members is the one who sends the request, does that still count? Do they have to literally find some disinterested third party to request the takedown or does that still count?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
It is.
Actually, no, that’s exactly what I don’t want government doing. (nvm that if you think speech can undermine “democracy itself” you’re a fucking idiot) That’s exactly what the 1A is meant to prevent.
Hey, Iran also want to ban anyone saying that their elections are rigged. Oh, you think that’s true in the case of Iran and false in the case of the US? Good for you, but that’s not a governing principle. You CANNOT be having the government deciding what is true or not and suppressing speech it thinks is false, or punish the people saying it, and that way lies tyranny.
Nevermind you crying about “antivaxxers” lots and lots of actual doctors were pointing out that the vaccine was unlikely to work as well as advertised, that the risk to the young was VERY low, and that lots of the lockdowns and mask mandates had little effect but great costs and they were shadowbanned as a result. Much of this was in debate at the time but has proven true since. They were silenced. That isn’t OK. Heck, not twitter, but Facebook promised the white house that they would suppress information that they knew to be true at the time because they might cause “vaccine hesitancy”.
That’s not OK. That is exactly what should not happen. If you think that suppression is good you’re a totalitarian at heart.
Re: Re:
Notice how Matthew’s revisionist narrative brushes off the rules-violating accounts that were actively attempting to interfere with the election.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Besides having been proven to have little effect, Russians have free speech too, at least in the US. Memes can’t hurt you.
Again, this comes down to the totalitarian position: you believe people shouldn’t be allowed to say things you don’t like. Labeling it “interfering in an election”, regardless of whether that’s true (it wasn’t) doesn’t change anything.
Re: Re: Re:2
“It had little effect” doesn’t mean “it didn’t happen”.
If a Nazi wants to sieg heil, I say let them. But I don’t have to let them do that on my property—whether that’s my home in meatspace or a forum I run in cyberspace—and I sure as shit don’t have to keep my mouth shut about it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
I wouldn’t mind twitter banning “sieg Heil” but the fact is they allow all sorts of awful shit from around the world. They were primarily concerned with ideas they didn’t like from Americans. I’m very against that. I’m militantly against it when the government plays a role.
The fact that some Russians made some memes an idiot didn’t like has little to with that.
Re: Re: Re:4
Aren’t you one of the guys who keeps coming here and referring to any kind of moderation from Twitter as “censorship”?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
….and if you were paying attention, I was saying censorship can be OK, just don’t pretend it’s not censorship.
Re: Re: Re:6
What forms of censorship, specifically, are you talking about? And please, be as thorough as humanly possible. Cite actual examples of the exact kinds of censorship you’re comfortable with, even.
Re: Re: Re:2
Being able to say nasty things about minorities in America is one thing, and YOU are allowed to say that.
Interfering in a peaceful election, violently, is another matter altogether, and actually happened, no matter what you think.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Kinda belies the fact that you’ll label anything you don’t like some form of “hate speech”
Speech is not violence. Russian trolls making memes is not “intefering in an election” (you kids used to claim “hacked an election” at least you gave that up)
Re: Re: Re:4
What I hate is actual harassment being done and its perpatrators getting the fuck away scot-free. Like YOU. Being flagged is a slap on the wrist compared to what I’d to you if it weren’t illegal to do so.
Yes to the first point, with exceptions like “fighting words”, ie, saying you want to violently beat up certain groups of people.
As to your second pojnt, other than saying “congratulations for finally admitting you’re defending Russian interference in the election campaign through weaponized disinformation”…
I can meme harder than most Russians. I may be able to even make Russian memes funnier.
But what happened on Jan 6 definitely happened. And no, it wasn’t a bunch of Juggalos breaking into a government building to take selfies for their idols. It was white supremacists performing a fucking insurrection.
As usual, you continue to be a threat to America.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
OK, real talk, I want you to realize that you acting as if I’m a war criminal is rewarding to me. It’s a hyperbolic and dumb thing to say but it also means that I’ve hit home which is why you’re so bothered. “Owning the libs” indeed.
No you can’t. Not that the Russians were funny or effective (there’s a study on that) but the Left can’t meme and you are exactly the sorta humorless Karen who makes that axiom true.
Look, seriously, you can’t just go calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, makes you look really dumb. But you know how right wingers have 300 million guns? When we decide to have an insurrection you’ll know. It’s not going to be cute little old ladies and nice man taking a podium. This is what disgusts me about you people, you have no sense of perspective at all.
You have no idea what that means. But y’know, red coats and all that.
Re: Re: Re:6
Thank you for (again) confirming what an absolute loon you are.
Re: Re: Re:7
Less of a loon, more “FBI-defined threat to American peace”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
That’s not a thing, but if you’re not on a government watch list you haven’t been living right.
Re: Re: Re:9
You wish you were on Trump’s watchlist, Matty, because cocksucking authority is the only means by which you feel any sort of significance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Are you suggesting there aren’t valid reasons to rebel against the government? What if all those “nazis” you’re so afraid of took over? You’d be duty bound to resist, perhaps violently, right?
Re: Re: Re:8
There are.
But the only threat I’m seeing right is people like you. Who took on the mantle of the Nazis and try to push for an actual fascist leader to take over, despite the fucking evidence, domestically and INTERNATIONALLY, that they should NOT be holding the reins at a bare minimum.
Not the bloody Democrats, not the Greens, not actual conservatives who are more than happy to let Trump go and Biden peacefully reelected. And definitely not the commies, who, I would like to remind you, are relegated to being discussed on in academia and nothing else. And not the modern antifa as well, because they aren’t commies, first and foremost.
What does that leave us with? You and the usual suspects, the people who stormed a public building on Jan 6 to stop a peaceful political process being fucking watched by EVERYONOE ALL OVER THE WORLD, and the 73 million who boted in Trump in 2016 and tried to do it again in 2020.
MATT, YOU ARE THE NAZIS.
Re: Re: Re:8
No, and if you had any literacy, you would know I wasn’t.
You’re a loon because you make light of an actual insurrection and pretend it wasn’t one.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
“Thank you for (again) confirming what an absolute loon you are.”
“Wrong in principle, and tactically self destructive. When we move to the arena of violence, the most brutal guys win – and that’s not us.” ~ Noam Chomsky.
Is Noam Chomsky and absolute loon?
Re: Re: Re:8
Making yourself out to be the most brutal is a sad little power fantasy, Chozen. But that’s why all you’ll do is scream about degrees on a website of nobodies while boasting about all the femboys you’re fucking.
Re: Re: Re:8
Chomsky believes Shiva Ayyadurai invented email, so…
Re: Re: Re:6
You’re not worthy of the memes. You never were and never will be. Now get the fuck out of 4chan.
Jan 6 wasn’t enough, apparently. The Feds actually charging a bunch of people on various insurrection-related charges wasn’t enough, huh. Unsurprising.
Every accusation a confession.
Re: Re: Re:6
When we decide to have an insurrection you’ll know.
Of course we will! You’ll do the same thing you did the last time – livestream your crimes on social media to own the libs!
Fucking brilliant!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Like YOU. Being flagged is a slap on the wrist compared to what I’d to you if it weren’t illegal to do so.”
I’ve got $1,000 says Matt would kick the fucking shit out of you.
Re: Re: Re:6
The pimp shows up to defend his femboy. How adorable.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
You’re just jealous because you’ll never get fucked by a real man.
Re: Re: Re:6
Why is it that you fuckers always have to resort to violence or threats of violence?
And what does it prove if one person can beat up another?
I’m 6’5″ / 230, workout at the gym every morning as well as I used to do amateur boxing, so I can guarantee I could beat the shit out of both of you, but what would that prove….
absolutely nothing!
And I’m also a grown man and would never purposely want to fight anybody just to prove a point, only high school kids and drunken rednecks want to do that, because that’s all they know how to do.
But for weak insecure people such as you who have small penis syndrome, I guess it proves who has the….. smaller dick.?.?.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
6’5″ / 230
You are a fucking bean pole. George Foreman was 260 at 6’4″
Re: Re: Re:7
Read up on the quote Chozen used from Noam Chomsky. His shtick is to paint himself as the big alpha male, which maybe might have meant something half a century ago. Which would explain his constant adoration towards Trump, because the only thing he’s good for these days is bara porn with how much he emphasizes his masculinity.
Violence is how he works. Inevitably.
Re: Re: Re:7
White supremacists hate people who can fight back.
Re: Re: Re:6
Like how he presumably would kick his wife and kids, I imagine.
At least you’re being honest about wanting to see me getting beat up, scumbag.
Re: Re:
Hey, so, what was it that caused a bunch of people to storm the Capitol two years ago? It wasn’t evidence of a fraud against the country. It wasn’t some sort of violent action carried out against the U.S. by the U.S. military. It was Donald Trump and his associates telling everyone to “stop the steal” and the 2020 election was “rigged” that incited the insurrection.
Speech can absolutely undermine democracy if enough people believe it. If that weren’t true, the insurrection would never have happened.
Re: Re: Re:
And even if you don’t hold Trump responsible, the point is that enough people were spreading enough stupid speech that convinced them that screaming “Hang Mike Pence” was a suitable response.
This idea that speech can’t undermine democracy is ridiculous.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I think your speech undermines democracy. You don’t even want people to have free speech, the most basic right.
Just the same I think you have a right to say it no matter how dumb it is.
It’s definitely not fucking violence.
Re: Re: Re:3
And just what free speech do you think we don’t want people to have?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Basically anything that disagrees with you? This seriously isn’t hard.
I just want people to know I didn’t write your post, cuz it’s a perfect foil:
Free speech you don’t want people to have:
“hate speech” which can be literally anything you don’t like
*Anything questioning a vaccine’s efficacy or safety, *even a little bit (seriously, everything has some drawbacks) even if it happens to be true.
anything pointing out discrimination *in a preferred direction is still discrimination (aka affirmative action is totally racists)
*refusing to pretend women are exactly the same as women.
* refusing to pretend Men can get pregnant, or that transwomen are “real” women.
Just anything that offends that orthodoxy of the liberal group think, ever. Which is constantly shifting, btw, so that’s extra fun.
Re: Re: Re:5 Try harder
Once again, we have a right-winger projecting so hard they should open a movie theater.
Re: Re: Re:5
4chan still exists, and existed before 2016. 4chan legit argues over the dumbest of things everyday and until 2008, very few people cared. If anything, it’s the white supremacists who moved in since 2014 that should leave.
4chan is nasty, 4chan is offensive, hell, 4chan insults everyone equally because if we’re gonna be equal opportunity assholes, we insult everyone regardless of race, gender, sex, social standing or whatever the fuck is the flavor of the day for polite society.
And I haven’t been banned on 4chan for expressing views that offended people, because, guess what? We all know that simply existing is enough to make SOME people mad. Like how white supremacists were MAD that Obama became President. So mad that 73 million dipshits voted in Trump.
4chan has not been explictly targeted by the Feds for anything other than CSAM. That one asshole who keeps thinking he’s a Phillip K Dick character still has his blog up as well. And you? You’re on a one-man harassment crusade to shut the site becaause you are offended by what it does.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
So you just said that everyone who voted for Trump was a racist?
Yeah, so everything else you have to say is invalid, then.
Re: Re: Re:7
If the fucking whhite supremacist jackboot fits…
Re: Re: Re:
True threats and incitement are actual things, it’s true. Shocking to some. At least sometimes. When they aren’t fantastically and abusively making claims about one or the other themselves.
(Even though they are frequently misused and handled badly by local LEOs, they are adressed in very much 1A-compliant laws which have existed since forever.)
Re:
One question I have is, why was the FBI notifying Twitter of TOS violations? It’s not their job to do that.
Re: Re:
The violations were related to election mis- and disinformation campaigns as well as similar campaigns surrounding the pandemic, so far as I know. I’d say that’s well within the wheelhouse of the government’s duties. And I’ll remind you that the FBI only suggested that Twitter take action. On more than half of those suggestions, Twitter took no action, and it was never punished or threatened by the FBI for taking no action.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, no, very specifically I DO NOT want government trying to label “misinformation”. Not only do they not particularly know what the truth is any better than I do, invariably such things are used to partisan purpose, and were.
Re: Re: Re:2
There’s that illiteracy again.
The FBI wasn’t trying to label misinformation, it was simply asking Twitter: “Hey, you should take a good look at this content, it may be harmful”.
Re: Re: Re:2
“I DO NOT want government trying to label “misinformation”.”
It can label whatever it wants. What it can’t do is order a private entity to speak in a certain way based on their definitions purely on the basis of said speech. Which the FBI did not do, they simply advised Twitter that they saw what they thought were problems, and Twitter were freely able to agree or refuse to take action.
“invariably such things are used to partisan purpose, and were”
Which is not a problem at all, so long as it was Twitter or other private entities doing it. Unless you can show that there was actual coersion, this is Twitter exercising its own right to free speech and private property rights, and there’s zero evidence showing coersion. Even in your own definition here, you have to ignore at least half of the evidence to come to that conclusion, which is fundamentally dishonest.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah they did. C’mon, you guys have pushed this fiction too far, y’know that.
Re: Re: Re:4
Where are the fucking threats, TERRORIST?
WHERE ARE THE FUCKING THREATS, YOU FUCKING TERRORIST.
POINT OUT RIGHT NOW THE ACTUAL OR IMPLED THEREATS THE FBI MADE, YOU FUCKING TERRORIST.
WHERE ARE THE FUCKING THREATS?
Re: Re: Re:4
“C’mon, you guys have pushed this fiction too far”
We’re waiting for you to prove it’s a fiction. Which should be easy, if you have facts,
So far, it’s been proven that the FBI asked Twitter to look at things, less than 50% of those things resulted in action and Twitter received no retribution for the things they didn’t act on.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you’re lying.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
So much focus on coercion a word that only occurs twice in Bantam v. Sullivan and is not the crux of the decision. The true crux of the decision was the commission acting outside of the judicial process.
“Herein lies the vice of the system. The Commission’s operation is a form of effective state regulation superimposed upon the State’s criminal regulation of obscenity and making such regulation largely unnecessary. In thus obviating the need to employ criminal sanctions, the State
Page 372 U. S. 70
has at the same time eliminated the safeguards of the criminal process. Criminal sanctions may be applied only after a determination of obscenity has been made in a criminal trial hedged about with the procedural safeguards of the criminal process. The Commission’s practice is in striking contrast, in that it provides no safeguards whatever against the suppression of nonobscene, and therefore constitutionally protected, matter. It is a form of regulation that creates hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon the criminal law.
What Rhode Island has done, in fact, has been to subject the distribution of publications to a system of prior administrative restraints, since the Commission is not a judicial body and its decisions to list particular publications as objectionable do not follow judicial determinations that such publications may lawfully be banned. Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697; Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 303 U. S. 451; Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 164; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 306; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 340 U. S. 273; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 340 U. S. 293; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 355 U. S. 321. We have tolerated such a system only where it operated under judicial superintendence and assured a an almost immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint.”
So its not about “coercion” but the state going around the judicial process. Yes rights can be denied but they must be denied by “due process of law”.
Anytime the state attempts to remove rights by some other means than judicial process that is a 5th Amendment Violation.
Re: Re: Re:4
Do I need to quote the beginning of the paragraph once again to point out how you don’t understand legal cases?
Ah, what the heck:
These acts and practices directly and designedly stopped the circulation of publications in many parts of Rhode Island. It is true, as noted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, that Silverstein was “free” to ignore the Commission’s notices, in the sense that his refusal to “cooperate” would have violated no law. But it was found as a fact – and the finding, being amply supported by the record, binds us that Silverstein’s compliance with the Commission’s directives was not voluntary. People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around, and Silverstein’s reaction, according to uncontroverted testimony, was no exception to this general rule. The Commission’s notices, phrased virtually as orders, reasonably understood to be such by the distributor, invariably followed up by police visitations, in fact stopped the circulation of the listed publications ex proprio vigore. It would be naive to credit the State’s assertion that these blacklists are in the nature of mere legal advice, when they plainly serve as instruments of regulation independent of the laws against obscenity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Again Sullivan is a 2 part decision. The SCOTUS overturned the superior courts decision which had found no 1A violation. That was the immediate question and answered first because the SCOTUS couldn’t let the Superior Court decision stand. But then the SCOTUS took it a step further and expanded case law to establish that any such state actor that attempts to suppress rights outside of the judicial process is almost inherently a 5th Amendment violation.
The FBI flagging Twitter Accounts as foreign state actors is no different than the Rhode Island Commission flagging books as obscene.
Re: Re: Re:6
Fuck your feelings!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
The FBI has no statuary authority at all. When pressed Wray can’t name the statute the FBI is enforcing.
Re: Re: Re:2
I know this may be a difficult concept to understand, but the FBI voluntarily passing on information to a private entity doesn’t need a statue.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
That would be a 5th Amendment violation.
Re: Re: Re:4
That is the dumbest shit I’ve read today.. Well, to be fair, your pathetic e-muscle flex earlier was actually dumber.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Speech is made. State actor flags speech as in their opinion a violation of some law. In Twitter’s case the FBI says its foreign state actors, in the Sullivan case it was “obscene” books. The state actor then attempts under the color of law to get the private actor to remove the speech without going through any due process. That is a due process violation you fucking moron.
Re: Re: Re:6
… said nobody with any comprehension of what those words actually mean.
(Hint: it’s not “someone from the government said it.”)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
“Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, ACTS UNDER “COLOR OF LAW” INCLUDE ACTS NOT ONLY DONE BY FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL OFFICIALS WITHIN THIR LAWFUL AURHORITY, BUT ALSO ACTS DONE BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF THAT OFFICIAL’S LAWFUL AUTHORITY, IF THE ACTS ARE DONE WHILE THE OFFICIAL IS PROPORTING OR PRETENDING TO ACT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS/HER OFFICAL DUTIES.”
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Seriously shut the fuck up. You know fuck all about what you are talking about. You are just praying that you might be right. You research jack shit before you fucking spout off you stupid fucking prick.
“Well Mike said so … :cry:”
Mike is as fucking dumb as you are!
Re: Re: Re:8
If you were at all literate, you’d have realized your own citation just further proved you wrong.
Re: Re: Re:9
Holy shit. That’s hilarious.
Chozen is so dumb. His own citation proves he’s wrong.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
How? Explain.
Are you ageing that the 80 FBI agents were just acting as private citizens?
Re: Re: Re:11
No one’s going to suck your cock for you, Chozen.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Oh shut up.
Make a claim but dont explain how just pretend to have secret knowledge.
Fucking communists. Secret knowledge. Secret evidence. Secret courts.
Suck my fat cock.
What are you ging to argue that the FBI weren’t acting in their official capacity but were just private citizens?
Go fuck yourself.
Re: Re: Re:10
Exactly what somebody would say when they know they have been skewered and are on life support!
Re: Re: Re:10
“What are you ging to argue that the FBI weren’t acting in their official capacity but were just private citizens?”
The argument is that the FBI did nothing that a private citizen would not be able to do, and that since Twitter ignored a majority of their requests, they were not afraid of retribution if they ignored them. Which is all supported by the evidence we have.
The ball is in your court. You could change a lot of minds by proving actual influence. Why do you not provide that?
Re: Re: Re:8
You have only ever said that when you lost an argument.
Re: Re:
So, when they trawl social media for threats and they come across something that doesn’t necessarily indicate something criminal but that is obviously against the TOS of the service – should they ignore it? Your question indicates that you think that FBI should ignore things that may be wrong but not illegal or criminal.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, yes, obviously. I cannot stress this enough….I **really, really, really do not want the FBI chasing after whatever they think is “wrong”, but breaks no laws. (and for that matter their are too many laws) Like, that would be very bad if they started doing this.
This plays into the fiction that they can somehow do this better than Twiiter can (they can’t) and that they were just “helping”. They weren’t, there were asking Twitter to punish disfavored speech.
Speech isn’t any of these things.
Re: Re: Re:2
That is not what they are doing, but they help the moderation effort by having more eyeballs on what is being posted. Outside of edge cases, the problem with manual moderation at the scale of Twitter and Facebook is not recognizing something that breaks the TOS, but rather in having that seen by somebody who can and will report it. That is the problem is not in the recognizing, but in the seeing, and more eyes help the seeing bit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
fuck you’re an idiot.
Well, good news, neither does almost any of that, actually.
Do me a favor, I guess, when they tell you to get in that cattle-car, go, but tell your family to run, they don’t deserve that.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Do me a favor, I guess, when they tell you to get in that cattle-car,”
And here we go with the Godwin. You should stop embarrassing yourself and go pay someone for sex.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
It’s what unreasoning fellatio of government authority gets you, I’m sorry. “line up against the wall”, if you will much more common in the communist uprisings, same outcome.
Re: Re: Re:6
You would speak from experience considering how much you’ve deepthroated Trump.
Re: Re: Re:7
Let’s not forget how much of elmo sak he gargled.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
You actually know nothing about my opinion of Trump.
Re: Re: Re:8
Sorry can’t hear you with those tiny wrinkled orange walnuts in your mouth.
Re: Re: Re:8
And I don’t particularly care, since you constantly defend him and the white supremacist position.
Re: Re: Re:6
You seems to only be able to argue in black and white extremes. That’s a sign of a limited intellect. Either that or a good case of Poe’s law.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Or, alternatively, you just can’t see how extreme and fucked up your ideas are. This is the sorta thing that happens before major revolutions, y’know. Cambodian killing fields, that sorta thing. Whole classes of people purged and the babies heads smashed against tree trunks for who their parents are. Every case that we know of has been pre-internet so some things will play out different but the all the same ideas are getting bandied about.
I fear it, truly.
Re: Re: Re:8
Matthew Bennett stars in The Irony 2: Electric Boogaloo!
Re: Re: Re:8 The call is coming from inside the house
Yes, and that is literally what your side is proposing to do to “libs” if they get into power. The right is always accusing the left of things that the right actually wants to do.
Re: Re: Re:9
Every accusation a confession, every self-given label a rejection of.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
That’s funny because that’s what we say about you guys.
Re: Re: Re:11
Yes yes, you’ve already told us that you’re pathological liars, no need to keep reminding us.
Re: Re: Re:11
You don’t really need to go into detail about your pillow talk with Chozen, Matthew.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Except I’m not the one trying to control what you say, keep you in your house, ban you from society if don’t get the injection that doesn’t work, and generally make your life miserable if you disagree with government.
This is why we have the 2A, btw, it’s fundamental function is to defend against tyranny. Dictators always try to take the guns, first.
Re: Re: Re:10
You do know it’s impossible to see anyone fitting the above description existing without heavy daily meth/FOX ingestion, right.
Re: Re: Re:10
Except, literally none of those things are happening. Your claims and arguments are simply too extreme and detached from reality to be taken seriously.
I think you’re just happy to have found a group of people who actually pay attention to you, even if only in the form of ridicule.
Re: Re: Re:10
I read all the comments, even the hidden ones, to see the alternative point of view. Usually I diasgree with yours, however I did, in principle, agree with your comment on another article about facial recognition. But that was the lone time. And I normally don’t comment on the articles as usually someone else gets to a similar point that I would make. However, this 2Aer argument always amuses and amazes me. Putting aside that 2Aers always willfully ignore the whole “well regulated militia” part of the text (and Cletus, Zeke and Jed playing GI Joe on the weekend doesn’t constitute a militia), I agree in principle with the reasoning behind the Second Amendment, to stand against a tyranical government. But, 2Aers ignore the logical practicalities of it meaning…
The “government” is not at all scared of you 2Aers and your 300 million guns.
“They” are not worried about you, Cletus, Zeke and Jed bounding around with your ARs and Glocks. You are not a “well regulated militia.” You are not large, well organized or well trained wearing your cast-offs from the local army surplus store. Because if, IF they came for your precious guns, it won’t be two guys in a Crown Vic. As the police have been militarized, it’ll be 20 guys in several MRAPs with greanades and automatic weapons. Or a drone strike that craters your house or an air strike that levels your street. These are the tactics and strategies “they” have been perfecting for decades overseas. The tactics of asymmetrical and guerilla warfare. Because in that moment you are not a patriot, you are a domestic terrorist, radical or insurgent. Just like they were on January 6th.
The 2Aer argument is the last flail in the losing side of a discussion that just says “well I may not be right, but I’ll shoot anyone who dares say so.” I accept you don’t think that you’re wrong, but at least accept you aren’t going to win your argument here.
Re: Re: Re:11
” As the police have been militarized, it’ll be 20 guys in several MRAPs with greanades and automatic weapons. Or a drone strike that craters your house or an air strike that levels your street. These are the tactics and strategies “they” have been perfecting for decades overseas. ”
Yep we sure beat the Taliban … oh wait.
Look I dont want a civil war anymore than the next guy but as a student of military history past and present the idea that the same military that lost against an insurgency in a country roughly the size of Texas is somehow going to lockdown the entire US is laughable.
Re: Re: Re:12
And who are the competent leaders and organized militias who might win an insurgency, or will infighting between far right groups give the government an easy victory.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
You really think Milley v. Flynn is a fair fight? The woke upper brass of the military couldn’t beat France.
Re: Re: Re:14
And you think your militias in motorized wheelchairs stand a better chance?
Re: Re: Re:12
Don’t lie to yourself, Chozen. Violent fantasies and demanding anyone and everyone fellates you is all you have anymore.
Re: Re: Re:8
The only reason you fear it because you want to be the one murdering babies because they didn’t vote Trump in 2016 and 2020. Shooting people because they’re not white and dare to defend themsenves instead of taking the boot to their head like meek little subservients.
Be a fucking man and at least admit you want to murder us all.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
You get the same answer that bluegrass retard did. I’m not the one trying to control what you say and ban you from society should you disagree.
The left is totalitarian af. Dictators always try to take the guns, first.
Re: Re: Re:10
Says the man on a one-man harassment campaign to force the site owner and his contributors to either shut down or post stuff that does NOT criticize Musk, the Republicans and whateveer paints his side in a bad light.
Spin it however you want, you don’t want to leave until Mike “pays respects” to the Republican Party and its white supremacist position.
And again, I was unaware that Communism as a whole has become a voting bloc in ANY country of the world.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
They only pretend to have a vote sometimes.
But man, you’re a real ray of sunshine, huh?
Re: Re: Re:12
Which would explain why you’re scuttling away from it like a cockroach.
Re: Re: Re:4
Do me a favor, I guess, when they tell you to get in that cattle-car, go, but tell your family to run, they don’t deserve that.
We know you’re passionate about Twitter. Why else would you equate being moderated to the holocaust?
By the rate at which you comment here, I’m guessing you have few if any ‘real-life’ friends and look online for social engagement.
It’s OK. You’re not alone. There’s a lot of you people out there. But remember the ‘social’ part of social media – people don’t want to socialize with a certifiable screwball with a persecution complex.
Just keep telling yourself ‘I’m a winner!’ and not ‘I’m a victim!’ for a better look.
HTH
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
It starts with the 2A, then the 1A, and then eventually they come for your life and liberty, that’s why.
Re: Re: Re:6
With how you chucklenuts bandy about your arms, boasting about how you’re going to anally rape anyone who disagrees with you and run away screaming “I’m not a threat I swear, bro!” it’s only a matter of time before your own kids accidentally pull the trigger while you show off your weaponry collection.
Re: Re: Re:2
I love the smell of flagging in the morning. You know, one time we had a troll flagged, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn’t find one of ’em, not one stinkin’ dink body.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Since each of you morons respond to each of my comments anyway, it apparently means basically nothing
Re: Re: Re:4
If it means nothing, then why keep throwing a tantrum and acting like it means something?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
cuz your actions are dumb, and tribal.
Why are you so upset about me caring?
Re: Re: Re:6
There’s some concern because your behavior patterns strongly correlate to the sort of actions usually taken before someone goes on a school shooting.
Nobody actually cares about you, people care about the collateral damage an incel like you is going to inflict because you haven’t poked a vagina yet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Yeah that made me chuckle.
I happen to be 45, married, with children. (what makes you think I’m not a woman, tho? “course haven’t poked a vagina, I have no poker! Silly cis-troll)
Honestly, I love this shit. Liberals are so hateful, it’s just amazing. Look at you rage! All the opprobrium you can muster, without anything to anchor it to. Just delectable.
Re: Re: Re:8
Projection at it’s finest!
Re: Re: Re:8
Writing self-insert Gary Stu fanfiction isn’t something to boast about, Matt.
Re: Re: Re:8
“I happen to be 45, married, with children.”
…and have achieved so little that you have nothing more to do with your life than spend day after day creating massive threads that consist of you attempting to spread misinformation and people correcting you on the facts. That’s rather sad, especially since you’re just trying the same debunked claimed thread after thread.
“what makes you think I’m not a woman, tho?”
Matthew would be a rather strange name for a woman, but your name and gender identity are not something that most people here would care about. It’s more the childish behaviour and your insistence on demonstrably wrong ideas that gets you criticised.
“Look at you rage”
Correcting your lies while laughing at you is not anger.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
I just came back here to check that you’re still cancer. Yup, you are.
Re: Re: Re:10
[Matthew malignantly projects another tumor into the comment thread filled with “facts” contrary to the evidence]
Re: Re: Re:10
“I just came back here to check that you’re still cancer”
You posted many, many times before I even saw this thread. Whatever you experienced recently to inspire you to post as much as you have recently, I hope it doesn’t last long, but it’s not healthy.
I’d say that no matter what you posted, but given that most of it seems to be specifically hateful fantasies, I hope you, your wife and your kids are OK. It’s not healthy to be posting as much as you do, and since you seem to have chosen to start doing it so much just around the holiday period, it’s concerning.
Here’s hoping that if something more important than defending Musk and the GOP for kicks online is going on, you deal with it in the right way. Until then, all I can say is that I disagree with what you’ve been saying with most of these threads and find you lack of ability to address what people are actually saying counter to what you seem to be trying to say.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
“…and have achieved so little that you have nothing more to do with your life than spend day after day creating massive threads that consist of you attempting to spread misinformation and people correcting you on the facts.”
Says the loser who made 2 dozens posts on a blog over a holiday weekend.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Thank you daddy. Did I do a good daddy? I put on the spiked plug just like you ordered me to daddy.
Oh look, suddenly the government telling private companies what to do is a problem now that their guys have control of both Facebook and Twitter despite Republicans having spent the past four years screeching about the companies censoring them and using the machinery of government to apply pressure to them. Colour me shocked.
They dont Force
They backdoor.
The Adult sites they didnt like, the gov. went out and told the CC corps that if they took money from them, They wouldnt CASH IT.
Which closed allot of Adult sites, esp. the Specialty ones.
No, we dont want to Force you to moderate, we will just get the banks NOT to cash you out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
If you want to look at injustice look at what they did to backpage, in my opinion in a completely extra legal fashion. Bullying financial companies I also don’t think is great, whether it’s to target gun manufacturers or weed companies. It’s more totalitarianism by proxy in all cases.
Speaking as one of Cathy McMorris Rogers’s constituents, I have to say that would be stunned if she actually did something useful.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The white house is only a small part of this problem
Again, I love your abject contempt for republicans contrasted with your protestations of being somehow “moderate”, but it’s almost like politicians directing the suppression of speech is bad.
I’m generally much more concerned with the FBI doing this (and they did it a lot) than the administration doing it cuz any communication from the FBI is laden with threat. Any citizen commits 3 federal crimes before breakfast and the FBI can find them if it wants to. Congress and the administration can get laws passed but in the short term they’re just a politician. Relevant committees are a direct threat of being subpoenaed but you’re unlikely to wind up in jail. (but again, look at pharma bro)
Yeah, it is. Especially if that “thing” is suppress speech. In fact, using the power of their office to make a communication requesting such an action directly implies coercion. This is why your protestations that such a “request” requires some direct threat is such bunk…no your cited examples of small cases with local politicians don’t really count. People DO NOT feel free to tell the FBI to go stuff it, nor for that matter a committee investigating you. You could argue that maybe an FBI as a private citizen could make such a request…but how could you trust it was unrelated to his office? Why would Twitter even be listening, then?
I think you’re starting to admit to yourself, Masnick, that the communications of numerous federal entities with Old Twitter was really, really bad. (also a 1A violation) So much so that you’re getting over your disgust of republicans to admit maybe they have a point. But it would be much much better if you’d just admit that to the rest of us.
Big boys know when to say “I was wrong”.
Re:
Ooh, self-burn! Those are rare.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Mike's Inside
Understand that the when Mike made his first claims about ‘no FBI involvement’ he most likely wasn’t dong that in the dark. Mike works for these people. In my opinion Mike was well aware that James Baker was still at Twitter and was making sure evidence involving the FBI wasn’t going to see the light of day.
When James Baker got caught fired Mike had to scramble because Mike and his teams entire narrative was based around James Baker’s ability to hide and destroy the evidence.
In my opinion of course.
Re: Re:
Wait… did you hear that… Mike is yelling at you from that huge fucking castle where he lives rent free inside your head…
I think he asked if you would mow the lawn for him.
Re: Re:
I just want to point out, saying blatantly defamatory things like “Mike works for these people” and then adding “In my opinion of course” doesn’t actually shield your from being sued for defamation unless you actually can provide some evidence supporting your “opinion”. Defamation/libel law is funny that way when you claim that someone is doing very specific things in an effort to defame/libel them.
Now, me calling you a stupid asshole due to your conduct isn’t defamatory in the slightest.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s always projection with these asshats. Call out the incestuous relationship between Chozen and Matt and they call you homophobic, but every single death and rape threat they’ve prayed towards everyone else gets a pass because “It’s just a prank, bro!”
Re: Re: Re:2
I give Chozen a day or two before he resorts to the blowjob demand threats. He’s predictable that way.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Mike is a public figure and I’d love to see discovery. Every talking head “expert” has a non-profit that is nothing more than a tax shelter.
Mike should be more worried about a twitter files directly related to all these big tech propogandists paid by through their non-profits.
Re: Re: Re:2
I hear Mike yelling at you from that huge fucking castle where he lives rent free inside your head…
This time I think he’s telling you to take out the garbage!
Re: Re: Re:2
“Mike is a public figure and I’d love to see discovery.”
Discovery for what? You’d have to file a lawsuit for something illegal for discovery to happen, and I’ve not seen anything other than “Google once sponsored a side project, among many other sponsors” as a complaint from you guys. Which is not illegal, and you haven’t even demonstrated a reason to believe that specific sponsorship means anything in terms of editorial influence about the other sponsors, let alone a reasonable complaint elsewhere.
If you want “discovery”, you first need a coherent, reasonable, complaint with some evidence behind it. Which none of you people have provided. All we have is “I disagree”, and that’s usually followed with a complaint that’s factually untrue, then further whining that nobody else buys the original false statement.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your boi John Smith has been claiming all sorts of exposes for Masnick over the last half-decade for everything from financial fraud to sexual harassment. I think it’s fair to say that if you haven’t managed to unearth anything from a website owner you widely and proudly claim is a complete and thorough nobody, you’ve got nothing.
Petard Own, Hoist Upon
So, basically Congress in passing this, would be nullifying the ability of the federal government, from the department of education to the FBI, to HHS, to do things like enforce the Mexico City Policy on providing information on abortion, birth control, the promotion of terrorism, any kind of spam or fraud, not to mention any kind federal action that would restrict diversity training, sex education, public drag shows, or other “woke” activity, because that would be censorship..
And this is not to even begin to get into senators like Jim Jordan jawboning things like “Go Woke, Go Broke” or the like..
Mostly just sounds like another law saying it’s not legal to violate “the law” (other, higher laws). Not so much redundant, more like a “noodge.”
Employee =/= equal member of congress or their staff. Hmmmm
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Really dont understand Sullivan 1963 do you mike.
“”Herein lies the vice of the system. The Commission’s operation is a form of effective state regulation superimposed upon the State’s criminal regulation of obscenity and making such regulation largely unnecessary. In thus obviating the need to employ criminal sanctions, the State
Page 372 U. S. 70
has at the same time eliminated the safeguards of the criminal process. Criminal sanctions may be applied only after a determination of obscenity has been made in a criminal trial hedged about with the procedural safeguards of the criminal process. The Commission’s practice is in striking contrast, in that it provides no safeguards whatever against the suppression of nonobscene, and therefore constitutionally protected, matter. It is a form of regulation that creates hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon the criminal law.
What Rhode Island has done, in fact, has been to subject the distribution of publications to a system of prior administrative restraints, since the Commission is not a judicial body and its decisions to list particular publications as objectionable do not follow judicial determinations that such publications may lawfully be banned. Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697; Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 303 U. S. 451; Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 164; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 306; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 340 U. S. 273; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 340 U. S. 293; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 355 U. S. 321. We have tolerated such a system only where it operated under judicial superintendence and assured a an almost immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint.”
The Crux of Sullivan is that the process the state went by was a 5th Amendment violation. Anytime the state is working with private actors to deny rights that is a 5th Amendment violation because it is a denial of due process.
Re:
Oh, another cite of a case that Chozen doesn’t understand.
Let’s add the missing first part of the paragraph you quoted:
These acts and practices directly and designedly stopped the circulation of publications in many parts of Rhode Island. It is true, as noted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, that Silverstein was “free” to ignore the Commission’s notices, in the sense that his refusal to “cooperate” would have violated no law. But it was found as a fact – and the finding, being amply supported by the record, binds us that Silverstein’s compliance with the Commission’s directives was not voluntary. People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around, and Silverstein’s reaction, according to uncontroverted testimony, was no exception to this general rule. The Commission’s notices, phrased virtually as orders, reasonably understood to be such by the distributor, invariably followed up by police visitations, in fact stopped the circulation of the listed publications ex proprio vigore. It would be naive to credit the State’s assertion that these blacklists are in the nature of mere legal advice, when they plainly serve as instruments of regulation independent of the laws against obscenity.
And then you drop this gem:
“Working with”, is that an euphemism for threats of criminal proceedings?
Why are you so bad at this.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Oh please. In that section the court is restating the finding of the Superior Court. The SCOTUS took it one step further and declared
“Herein lies the vice of the system.”
While the superior court had ruled on 1st Amendment grounds due to actions, which the SCOTUS disagreed with, they went directly to the nature of the Commission itself and found it violated 5th Amendment in its structure as there was no due process.
Mike can sit here and argue “coercion” ignoring that the court didn’t just say “coercion” what the court said was
“the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation”
The 5th Amendment ground which make the true crux of Sullivan is a far more sticky wicket.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s the same section, did the footnotes confuse you?
Yeah, lets yank something out of a case-text just because that bit supports your stupid argument. That is not how it works, I’ve explained this before to you but it seems you are incapable of learning that context matters when you read case-files. And try no to get confused by the footnotes.
Actually, it’s the 14th since it was a state action.
Synonyms for coercion:
* duress
* intimidation
* persuasion
* bullying
* constraint
* force
* menace
* restraint
* threat
* violence
* browbeating
* menacing
* strong-arm tactic
* threatening
Interesting, it’s almost like those words are largely interchangeable. Hmm, I wonder if laws are written in such a way to make it clear that it doesn’t just cover one specific type of action defined by a single word. What a novel idea..
14th…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Actually, it’s the 14th since it was a state action.”
God you are a fucking moron. Frantically reading through something you don’t understand. The reference to the 14th boilerplate because of incorporation.
“(a) The Fourteenth Amendment requires that regulation by the States of obscenity conform to procedures that will ensure against the curtailment of constitutionally protected expression, which is often separated from obscenity only by a dim and uncertain line. ”
Short law class. The Constitution didn’t originally apply to the states. 14th Amendment Applied it to the states. What the court is saying here is the due to incorporation under the 14th Amendment the commission must Conform to the Constitution.
The Commission didn’t do so because it violated the 1A in practice and the 5A in fundamental structure.
Mike can argue over 1A but the 5A is much tougher because there is very little difference between the commission flagging books as obscene and the FBI flagging twitter accounts as foreign actors both done outside of any due process.
Re: Re: Re:3
So Newsmax just joined OAN in the “get fucked” club. How’s that plan to get them aired again working out for you?
Re:
Oh, and look, another case of Chozen being so fucking stupid that he doesn’t know how thread comment sections work…. again…
What a fucking joke you moron.
Re:
As a reminder, here’s a bracketed list of every single comment Chozen has ever made, that has been supported by law:
{}
Thanks for sharing such an informative and Fantastic post,I bookmarked this page and will get through all your posts.Keep sharing such nice posts