Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:53 pm
Here’s a little exercise for you. Go to Twitter and search “Hunter Biden,” then come back and tell me they are censoring that.
UJRefugees.net
UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://ujrefugees.net/
More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Page 24 of 30
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:02 pm
I'm sort of surprised that you are taking that approach, but:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitters-l ... 1604263210
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... p-business
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/ ... tate-media
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:03 pm
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:06 pm
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:40 pm
Well, yeah, that is exactly my point. If you go to Twitter you will find plenty of discussion of hunter Biden’s laptop, regardless of what your posted articles claim.Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:03 pmwell, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:21 pm
Wow. if you are really this stupid, then good job.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:40 pmWell, yeah, that is exactly my point. If you go to Twitter you will find plenty of discussion of hunter Biden’s laptop, regardless of what your posted articles claim.Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:03 pmwell, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:23 pm
Stupid is seeing evidence and ignoring it. Go.....to.....Twitter.....and.....see.....for....yourself.Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:21 pmWow. if you are really this stupid, then good job.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:40 pmWell, yeah, that is exactly my point. If you go to Twitter you will find plenty of discussion of hunter Biden’s laptop, regardless of what your posted articles claim.Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:03 pmwell, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:28 pm
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:30 pm
you seriously can't be on the up and up here. there is no way you can not know that Twitter and Facebook were censoring posts, blocking accounts and flagging people's posts during october and november for mentioning the hunter biden story.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:23 pmStupid is seeing evidence and ignoring it. Go.....to.....Twitter.....and.....see.....for....yourself.Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:21 pmWow. if you are really this stupid, then good job.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:40 pmWell, yeah, that is exactly my point. If you go to Twitter you will find plenty of discussion of hunter Biden’s laptop, regardless of what your posted articles claim.Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:03 pmwell, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:36 pm
From Rolling Stone:
After the Post story was published last week, both Facebook and Twitter, in an apparent effort to right the wrongs of 2016, took action to limit its spread. Twitter blocked users from sharing the story on the grounds that it violated Twitter guidelines against publishing hacked materials, while Facebook limited its distribution pending third-party fact-check review.
Fuck
After the Post story was published last week, both Facebook and Twitter, in an apparent effort to right the wrongs of 2016, took action to limit its spread. Twitter blocked users from sharing the story on the grounds that it violated Twitter guidelines against publishing hacked materials, while Facebook limited its distribution pending third-party fact-check review.
Fuck
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:45 pm
Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:30 pmyou seriously can't be on the up and up here. there is no way you can not know that Twitter and Facebook were censoring posts, blocking accounts and flagging people's posts during october and november for mentioning the hunter biden story.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:23 pmStupid is seeing evidence and ignoring it. Go.....to.....Twitter.....and.....see.....for....yourself.Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:21 pmWow. if you are really this stupid, then good job.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:40 pmWell, yeah, that is exactly my point. If you go to Twitter you will find plenty of discussion of hunter Biden’s laptop, regardless of what your posted articles claim.
So try this, an advanced search of Twitter, date range September and October, 2020, for hunter biden. These are a few of the results of posts during that timeframe.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:45 pm
Well, my search range was until November 3, but same results essentially.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:42 pm
are you denying that twitter and facebook blocked and censored the hunter biden story or are you just proving that you can find some tweets that include that topic? because you could not be more wrong about this.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:51 pm
I looked it up and they blocked sharing of the New York Post article on Hunter Biden, so in that specific instance, yes they did block it. Otherwise, no.
Are you saying they did so on more than the Post article?
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:55 pm
Why does anyone give a fuck about hunter bidens laptop? That's like eric trumps grindr profile..... Who cares
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:03 am
like i said earlier, i obviously don't have access to all of the shit they do. i don't even use fb or twitter. i know that if a news source breaks a story then they are the ONLY source of that story. and if an outlet, like twitter or facebook, block that source and ANYONE that shares anything on that topic from that source, then they story is dead. Other than posts like you found where people are simply talking about it. but the story itself was canned by them. this is just one example. they didn't do that with stories that disparaged trump, even though the evidence to support the story was no better or worse than the evidence to support the Hunter Biden story. Did they censor the story about trump calling vets losers and chumps? that was based on anonymous sources. no, they didn't.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:51 pmI looked it up and they blocked sharing of the New York Post article on Hunter Biden, so in that specific instance, yes they did block it. Otherwise, no.
Are you saying they did so on more than the Post article?
the point of this isn't to defend trump or be pro-trump or cult trump or whatever. the point is that these sites are picking and choosing how and who to censor.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:25 am
Just a suggestion, you are better off using the active Aytollah Khamenei account in your argument. The Hunter Biden story contained possible material from a hack which violates other user guidelines. The initial ban was not just because they didn't like what it said in the article. Carry on...Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:03 amlike i said earlier, i obviously don't have access to all of the shit they do. i don't even use fb or twitter. i know that if a news source breaks a story then they are the ONLY source of that story. and if an outlet, like twitter or facebook, block that source and ANYONE that shares anything on that topic from that source, then they story is dead. Other than posts like you found where people are simply talking about it. but the story itself was canned by them. this is just one example. they didn't do that with stories that disparaged trump, even though the evidence to support the story was no better or worse than the evidence to support the Hunter Biden story. Did they censor the story about trump calling vets losers and chumps? that was based on anonymous sources. no, they didn't.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:51 pmI looked it up and they blocked sharing of the New York Post article on Hunter Biden, so in that specific instance, yes they did block it. Otherwise, no.
Are you saying they did so on more than the Post article?
the point of this isn't to defend trump or be pro-trump or cult trump or whatever. the point is that these sites are picking and choosing how and who to censor.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:36 am
right.Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:25 amJust a suggestion, you are better off using the active Aytollah Khamenei account in your argument. The Hunter Biden story contained possible material from a hack which violates other user guidelines. The initial ban was not just because they didn't like what it said in the article. Carry on...Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:03 amlike i said earlier, i obviously don't have access to all of the shit they do. i don't even use fb or twitter. i know that if a news source breaks a story then they are the ONLY source of that story. and if an outlet, like twitter or facebook, block that source and ANYONE that shares anything on that topic from that source, then they story is dead. Other than posts like you found where people are simply talking about it. but the story itself was canned by them. this is just one example. they didn't do that with stories that disparaged trump, even though the evidence to support the story was no better or worse than the evidence to support the Hunter Biden story. Did they censor the story about trump calling vets losers and chumps? that was based on anonymous sources. no, they didn't.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:51 pmI looked it up and they blocked sharing of the New York Post article on Hunter Biden, so in that specific instance, yes they did block it. Otherwise, no.
Are you saying they did so on more than the Post article?
the point of this isn't to defend trump or be pro-trump or cult trump or whatever. the point is that these sites are picking and choosing how and who to censor.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:37 am
does posting a person's stolen tax returns break any kind of rules or nah?
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:03 am
Fair enough, but repealing 230 isn’t the answer. You’d essentially shut down all commentary online, not just Twitter and Facebook. Every website that allows comment; newspapers, Amazon, TripAdvisor, blogs, all would have to screen each and every post for potential libelous content. They need to be able to block some content; threats, etc., so they have to have some discretion as to what they block. They are also a private entity so they do have discretion as to what they choose to allow. Parler, OANN, etc., have the same discretion.Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:03 amlike i said earlier, i obviously don't have access to all of the shit they do. i don't even use fb or twitter. i know that if a news source breaks a story then they are the ONLY source of that story. and if an outlet, like twitter or facebook, block that source and ANYONE that shares anything on that topic from that source, then they story is dead. Other than posts like you found where people are simply talking about it. but the story itself was canned by them. this is just one example. they didn't do that with stories that disparaged trump, even though the evidence to support the story was no better or worse than the evidence to support the Hunter Biden story. Did they censor the story about trump calling vets losers and chumps? that was based on anonymous sources. no, they didn't.Wut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:51 pmI looked it up and they blocked sharing of the New York Post article on Hunter Biden, so in that specific instance, yes they did block it. Otherwise, no.
Are you saying they did so on more than the Post article?
the point of this isn't to defend trump or be pro-trump or cult trump or whatever. the point is that these sites are picking and choosing how and who to censor.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:14 am
now, with that i whole heartedly agree. the problem is that they have shown their hand. they have shown who they are biased toward. can they reverse that and go back to a middle of the road fair and balanced decider of what is over the line? I am not sure. I honestly don't understand their motivation to do what they have done. to censor parlor, which is only known to be a conservative free speech site, makes absolutely no sense. there are literally hundreds of illegal content porn sites on the internet right now. so let's go after parlor?Wut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:03 am Fair enough, but repealing 230 isn’t the answer. You’d essentially shut down all commentary online, not just Twitter and Facebook. Every website that allows comment; newspapers, Amazon, TripAdvisor, blogs, all would have to screen each and every post for potential libelous content. They need to be able to block some content; threats, etc., so they have to have some discretion as to what they block. They are also a private entity so they do have discretion as to what they choose to allow. Parler, OANN, etc., have the same discretion.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:38 am
Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:14 amnow, with that i whole heartedly agree. the problem is that they have shown their hand. they have shown who they are biased toward. can they reverse that and go back to a middle of the road fair and balanced decider of what is over the line? I am not sure. I honestly don't understand their motivation to do what they have done. to censor parlor, which is only known to be a conservative free speech site, makes absolutely no sense. there are literally hundreds of illegal content porn sites on the internet right now. so let's go after parlor?Wut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:03 am Fair enough, but repealing 230 isn’t the answer. You’d essentially shut down all commentary online, not just Twitter and Facebook. Every website that allows comment; newspapers, Amazon, TripAdvisor, blogs, all would have to screen each and every post for potential libelous content. They need to be able to block some content; threats, etc., so they have to have some discretion as to what they block. They are also a private entity so they do have discretion as to what they choose to allow. Parler, OANN, etc., have the same discretion.
Porn hub doesn't tell anyone to execute congressmen/women
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:45 am
Probably the illegal porn sites aren’t hosted by Amazon, but Parler, where there is a ton of threatening language being posted, is hosted by Amazon.Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:14 amnow, with that i whole heartedly agree. the problem is that they have shown their hand. they have shown who they are biased toward. can they reverse that and go back to a middle of the road fair and balanced decider of what is over the line? I am not sure. I honestly don't understand their motivation to do what they have done. to censor parlor, which is only known to be a conservative free speech site, makes absolutely no sense. there are literally hundreds of illegal content porn sites on the internet right now. so let's go after parlor?Wut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:03 am Fair enough, but repealing 230 isn’t the answer. You’d essentially shut down all commentary online, not just Twitter and Facebook. Every website that allows comment; newspapers, Amazon, TripAdvisor, blogs, all would have to screen each and every post for potential libelous content. They need to be able to block some content; threats, etc., so they have to have some discretion as to what they block. They are also a private entity so they do have discretion as to what they choose to allow. Parler, OANN, etc., have the same discretion.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:51 am
ok. you agree with the decision. i don't.Wut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:45 amProbably the illegal porn sites aren’t hosted by Amazon, but Parler, where there is a ton of threatening language being posted, is hosted by Amazon.Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:14 amnow, with that i whole heartedly agree. the problem is that they have shown their hand. they have shown who they are biased toward. can they reverse that and go back to a middle of the road fair and balanced decider of what is over the line? I am not sure. I honestly don't understand their motivation to do what they have done. to censor parlor, which is only known to be a conservative free speech site, makes absolutely no sense. there are literally hundreds of illegal content porn sites on the internet right now. so let's go after parlor?Wut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:03 am Fair enough, but repealing 230 isn’t the answer. You’d essentially shut down all commentary online, not just Twitter and Facebook. Every website that allows comment; newspapers, Amazon, TripAdvisor, blogs, all would have to screen each and every post for potential libelous content. They need to be able to block some content; threats, etc., so they have to have some discretion as to what they block. They are also a private entity so they do have discretion as to what they choose to allow. Parler, OANN, etc., have the same discretion.
Re: More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:01 am
I don’t agree with the decision, I’m telling you why it was made.Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:51 amok. you agree with the decision. i don't.Wut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:45 amProbably the illegal porn sites aren’t hosted by Amazon, but Parler, where there is a ton of threatening language being posted, is hosted by Amazon.Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:14 amnow, with that i whole heartedly agree. the problem is that they have shown their hand. they have shown who they are biased toward. can they reverse that and go back to a middle of the road fair and balanced decider of what is over the line? I am not sure. I honestly don't understand their motivation to do what they have done. to censor parlor, which is only known to be a conservative free speech site, makes absolutely no sense. there are literally hundreds of illegal content porn sites on the internet right now. so let's go after parlor?Wut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:03 am Fair enough, but repealing 230 isn’t the answer. You’d essentially shut down all commentary online, not just Twitter and Facebook. Every website that allows comment; newspapers, Amazon, TripAdvisor, blogs, all would have to screen each and every post for potential libelous content. They need to be able to block some content; threats, etc., so they have to have some discretion as to what they block. They are also a private entity so they do have discretion as to what they choose to allow. Parler, OANN, etc., have the same discretion.