Politicians and Government Cringe Thread

[Skitzyfrenic]

Places with heavy moderation, ie censorship, tend to become left leaning in the modern day. Because the moderators tend to be busy bodies. And most of those are lefty. Have been for decades.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

@Zachowon
as stated already, the Left has been, is currently, and will continue to push their propaganda in the media. This will happen across all platforms they can reach.

The way we defeat them is ensure that everyone can hear the alternatives. Not force them to listen, but make sure those alternatives are readily available to them when they look.

 

[Ixian]

The media companies willingly do it.
Simple as.
They can say no.
You are basically saying the media companies can't conduct in thier own buisness. That they have to be open to all.

Yeah, like when the mob ordered small businesses to pay them every month. They could have totally said "no".

You are missing the obvious intimidation factor in having the FBI or NSA contact you and "suggest" you ban certain topics or individuals, and then supplement that with a nice cash incentive (such as was the case with Twitter before Musk bought it).

Your line of reasoning is weak.

 

[mrttao]

The govt "suggesting" or "bribing" corpos to violate the 1st amendment is in itself a case of the govt violating the 1st amendment.
Govt doesn't have to use force to violate the 1st amendment.

The govt is totally forbidden from doing this shit, even in a "soft" manner like "suggestions" and "bribes" and so on.

 

[Doomsought]

The govt "suggesting" or "bribing" corpos to violate the 1st amendment is in itself a case of the govt violating the 1st amendment.
Govt doesn't have to use force to violate the 1st amendment.

The govt is totally forbidden from doing this shit, even in a "soft" manner like "suggestions" and "bribes" and so on.

Its called conspiracy against rights, the potential penalties goes all the way up to death penalty. It has not been enforced for far too long. What conservatives need more than anything else is federal prosecutors with a thirst for blood.

 

[Ixian]

I mean the Twitter files lay it all out in the open. The US federal government was and likely still is using private corporations as meat puppets to do their dirty work.

We have plenty of proof of the government being in direct contact with Twitter, and specifying what the feds saw as "problematic" topics and individuals. Whom they expected the "private" company to poof from existence.

 

[Captain X]

You see. The argument is.
It's a company that got asked. Not threatened.
They are not the US government. They can ban what ever as they are a private enti

It should be illegal for the government to even ask.

 

[ATP]

This is already happening right now, only the right gets censored deplatformed debanked and periodically murdered in the streets by left wing actors. The best we can do right now is an evener playing field. With that well the left simply does not understand the value of money and goes through it quickly while we understand its value and can thus outlast them and get better value for our buck.

Add to that the left basically not having children and the right owns the long term but you still need to get your message out at all hence this.

Optymist.Left have mass media and public schools to steal our children.And,their ideal is world green gulag for us.
Good thing - even if we fall to that,muslims,hindu and China would not.
And then left would pray for white people to come and kill them....becouse other deaths would be less pleasant.

 

[Captain X]

So...you want it so private corporations can't control what they put on thier site? Forcing the government to force them not to censor anything?

No, I'm saying it should be illegal for the government to ask the private company to do so. What do you not understand about that?

The media companies willingly do it.
Simple as.
They can say no.
You are basically saying the media companies can't conduct in thier own buisness. That they have to be open to all.

You are literally the meme of the snake getting stomped on by a boot saying, "at least it's not the government doing it."

You are also repeatedly ignoring the aspect of this where it was the government that asked them to do it, so this isn't just a case of a private company doing whatever it wants.

The diffrence is, the government did not force them.
That is what thw case is about. No forcing.
It was voluntary to remove it

THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T FUCKING ALLOWED TO FUCKING ASK!!!!!!! It doesn't fucking matter if any "force" was involved. IT WAS WRONG OF THEM TO EVEN ASK! What part of that do you not understand?

 

[IndyFront]

Looks like the SC is getting ready to side with the Biden administration over White House social media meddling and manipulation

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

 

[Zachowon]

I concede on my argument. I can see that I can not win this due to the aspect of the general nature. Yall make more sense then me.

 

[Zachowon]

Looks like the SC is getting ready to side with the Biden administration over White House social media meddling and manipulation

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

It's because the argument is that the Government threatened and forced it.
Which they find unfounded from what I understand

 

[Bacle]

So...you want it so private corporations can't control what they put on thier site? Forcing the government to force them not to censor anything?

Yes, that is the better option, if the other option is allowing the gov to backdoor censor via 'asking'.

Things like CP and actual threats have laws covering them already, that companies need to comply with.

We don't need companies trying to enforce 'preferred narratives' via censorship pushed for political reasons.

It's a private company.
They should be able to do what ever.
The government would then have to allow grooming of children to be allowed because guess what
Stopping it would be going against free speech.
Or calling for so many things from the left would be allowed as well. And the right wouldn't be able to stop it

You do realize this like that meme about 'don't tread on me' not counting when it private corporations.

The media companies willingly do it.
Simple as.
They can say no.
You are basically saying the media companies can't conduct in thier own buisness. That they have to be open to all.

Uh, sure, as if this isn't the same sort of argument that allows businesses to shit all over conservatives for their politics already.

But so long as the boot on our neck is worn by a 'private' group, I guess it doesn't matter to you.

I understand that, but it opens the door to mass leftist ideology being shoved more heavily by the companies themselves outside of them being asked too censor the right

...talk about trying to shut the barn door after the horse has already bolted.

They are already doing what you talk about, it's not a hypothetical, and it sure isn't the Right/GOP in charge of what get censored or not.

Yeah, like when the mob ordered small businesses to pay them every month. They could have totally said "no".

You are missing the obvious intimidation factor in having the FBI or NSA contact you and "suggest" you ban certain topics or individuals, and then supplement that with a nice cash incentive (such as was the case with Twitter before Musk bought it).

Your line of reasoning is weak.

His line of reasoning comes from being an intel grunt who is serving DC, and thus from being the 'boot' in this situation.

He's fine with the intel agencies intimidating private companies ('because they can say no') and is kinda trying to play oblivious to the fact his concerns are already happening, regardless of this case, because his bosses like censorship for national security reasons.

Do not expect honest or good faith debate over censorship with anyone working in intel agencies/groups.

 

[Zachowon]

I am fully against censorship.
It is just the argument that is being made to scotus is that they asked, and did not force.

And companies can say no to Ontel agencies.
Unless warrants are invovled

 

[mrttao]

It's because the argument is that the Government threatened and forced it.
Which they find unfounded from what I understand

not why.
we literally have a supreme court justice saying that censorship is good and that the 1st amendment is problematic because it is hampering the govt ability to censor evil conservatives.

 

[Zachowon]

Yes, the political appointee yes.
Bit you have others that are stating jts because there was no threat or force.

 

[Iconoclast]

Pure sitcom material.

 

[Simonbob]

Oh, so trustworthy.

And they wonder why Congress is so "beloved".

 

[Poe]

Pure sitcom material.

she's annoying, but not technically wrong here. RICO is a way of charging people working together via a conspiracy not a specific criminal offense

 

[Captain X]

She's also talking over him while he's trying to answer.