Ellison and Weiss have competently gutted CBS News to appease the felon-in-chiefWeiss may not give a shit if CBS News fails in the long run (though I suspect she doesn’t want the embarassment of having been the big reason for its downfall). Ellison, on the other hand, would definitely care. Billionaires generally want a return on their investments, and billionaires who invest in major media conglomerates want to see those investments do better instead of worse. Ellison would absolutely want CBS News to succeed—but he’s too deep into his political bullshit to realize that trying to shift CBS News into “Fox News Lite” is like a Democrat running on “moderate” right-wing policies: Why would anyone an imitation when the real thing already exists?
nearly all media is left-wingNo. No, it is not. The overwhelming majority of mainstream media outlets are center-right with maybe a slight lean to the left on occasion. That you see credible reporting on factual information as “left-wing” is your problem.
He doesn’t need evidence when he's got ✨ feelings ✨ , don’tcha know.
Agents of the government shouldn’t be lying to the courts no matter what political party in charge. So what makes lying to the courts punishable when it happened under Biden but dismissable (or even morally righteous) when it happens under Trump?
Are ya winnin’, MAGA?
Burma Shave.
Someone in this town is tryin’ to burn the playhouse down.
Basically none of what you’re saying is trueProve your claim, then. I’ll wait.
The first group of Americans to get that treatment will be those critical of either Donald Trump, the Israeli government, or both. Trans people will be next because fascism literally hates queer people to death.
The US government is asking immigrants for information on US citizens if said immigrants are suspected of being “anti US” or supportive of “terrorism”. Whether you like that fact or agree with the context of that information gathering has no relevance to its factual nature. Either refute that fact with credible evidence or accept reality.
You’re just mad that a woman of color has a better life than you.
If the same legal principles that apply to Apple in this situation would also apply to Twitter, I’d be on Twitter’s side. Constitutional rights make for strange bedfellows; just ask anyone here who knows my stance on free speech.
Conservatism can also mean conserving what’s good about America, for what it’s worth.So what parts of American are conservatives trying to “conserve” right now, and what does “conserving” those parts mean for the overall progress of society? Because last time I checked, conservatives were (and arguably still are) the ones on the wrong side of history in re: the Civil Rights Movement, women’s rights, and queer rights.
If they’re changing immigration status, they ain’t US citizens, are they?Read further:
In some cases, they must also provide the handles of their young children, spouses, and parents, many of whom are U.S. citizens, green card holders, or are otherwise in the United States legally.So yes, this article is talking about a regime that wants the social media information of U.S. citizens—by birth or by naturalization—who are related to immigrants whom the regime claims are “anti US” or supportive of “terrorism”. Such people do exist, but the chances that most of the people who will be targeted by the regime are such people is not as high as the bigots running the government want you to believe.
Current constitutional law is never fixed.But it isn’t changing from day to day, either. Despite the best efforts of the conservatives on SCOTUS to do away with the Fourth Amendment, its protections are still intact. Could SCOTUS do an end run around the Fourth by finding some way to justify the kind of warrantless searches discussed in the article? Yes. Would they do that? I’d consider it likely. But right now, any law or legal precedent barring those kinds of searches remain intact; lower courts are bound to follow those laws/precedents until SCOTUS says otherwise.
Social media is a hot bed of anti US and terrorist supporting information.If a US citizen criticizes the US government, is that “anti US and terrorist supporting information” or legally protected speech under the First Amendment? If an immigrant follows on social media that same US citizen, is that decision “anti US and terrorist supporting information” or an act of engaging with critics of the government to understand differing perspectives of the US population? And for bonus points: Why does the government need the information of that US citizen if all they’re doing is using their First Amendment rights to legally express a grievance with their government, an act upon which this country was founded via the Declaration of Independence?
“We’re forcing X down your throat whether you like it or not.” Now by X, do I mean the social media service, or something far more salacious? Given the predilections of the people running this regime (and those of the people it’s protecting), it could be either one.
Just on a hunch, I checked, and to the surprise of literally no one (including myself): McCuskey is a Republican.
What OldTwitter would do (shadowbanning, yes they commited perjury, btw) was really bad.Even if I were to agree with you on all of that: How does that violate 230 when 230 is designed to let services like Twitter decide how to moderate what would otherwise be legally permissible speech? And please remember that Twitter, both then and now, is a privately owned service that has no obligation—legal or otherwise—to host a given user (and their speech) or display a user’s speech to anyone else.
It’s why I say that Ellison and Weiss don’t really want CNN to fail, so much as they want it to succeed on their terms. The problem lies in how neither of them realize their terms won’t work.