More Violent Democrats (now cowardly violent)

[Wut]

I have no idea.

The rest of us know the answer. They did NOT censor the russia collusion story and they absolutely censored the hunter biden laptop story.

Here’s a little exercise for you. Go to Twitter and search “Hunter Biden,” then come back and tell me they are censoring that.

[Animal]

I have no idea.

The rest of us know the answer. They did NOT censor the russia collusion story and they absolutely censored the hunter biden laptop story.

How do you know that?

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

[Animal]

I have no idea.

The rest of us know the answer. They did NOT censor the russia collusion story and they absolutely censored the hunter biden laptop story.

Here’s a little exercise for you. Go to Twitter and search “Hunter Biden,” then come back and tell me they are censoring that.

well, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

[Burn1dwn]

[Wut]

I have no idea.

The rest of us know the answer. They did NOT censor the russia collusion story and they absolutely censored the hunter biden laptop story.

Here’s a little exercise for you. Go to Twitter and search “Hunter Biden,” then come back and tell me they are censoring that.

well, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

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]

I have no idea.

The rest of us know the answer. They did NOT censor the russia collusion story and they absolutely censored the hunter biden laptop story.

Here’s a little exercise for you. Go to Twitter and search “Hunter Biden,” then come back and tell me they are censoring that.

well, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

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.

Wow. if you are really this stupid, then good job.

[Wut]

I have no idea.

The rest of us know the answer. They did NOT censor the russia collusion story and they absolutely censored the hunter biden laptop story.

Here’s a little exercise for you. Go to Twitter and search “Hunter Biden,” then come back and tell me they are censoring that.

well, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

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.

Wow. if you are really this stupid, then good job.

Stupid is seeing evidence and ignoring it. Go.....to.....Twitter.....and.....see.....for....yourself.

[Animal]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown ... 15487f6fc6

https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-caves- ... er-1543725

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/92376609 ... -joe-biden

https://fee.org/articles/big-tech-tried ... e-instead/

[Animal]

The rest of us know the answer. They did NOT censor the russia collusion story and they absolutely censored the hunter biden laptop story.

Here’s a little exercise for you. Go to Twitter and search “Hunter Biden,” then come back and tell me they are censoring that.

well, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

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.

Wow. if you are really this stupid, then good job.

Stupid is seeing evidence and ignoring it. Go.....to.....Twitter.....and.....see.....for....yourself.

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.

[Animal]

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

[Wut]

Here’s a little exercise for you. Go to Twitter and search “Hunter Biden,” then come back and tell me they are censoring that.

well, there you have it folks. Twitter (and facebook) did NOT censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

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.

Wow. if you are really this stupid, then good job.

Stupid is seeing evidence and ignoring it. Go.....to.....Twitter.....and.....see.....for....yourself.

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.

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.

[Wut]

Well, my search range was until November 3, but same results essentially.

[Animal]

Well, my search range was until November 3, but same results essentially.

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.

[Wut]

Well, my search range was until November 3, but same results essentially.

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.

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?

[Stapes]

Why does anyone give a fuck about hunter bidens laptop? That's like eric trumps grindr profile..... Who cares

[Animal]

Well, my search range was until November 3, but same results essentially.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Burn1dwn]

Well, my search range was until November 3, but same results essentially.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

Well, my search range was until November 3, but same results essentially.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

right.

[Animal]

does posting a person's stolen tax returns break any kind of rules or nah?

[Wut]

Well, my search range was until November 3, but same results essentially.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

[Stapes]

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.

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?

Porn hub doesn't tell anyone to execute congressmen/women

[Wut]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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.

ok. you agree with the decision. i don't.

[Wut]

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.

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?

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.

ok. you agree with the decision. i don't.

I don’t agree with the decision, I’m telling you why it was made.