I don’t agree with a government policy shutting down X but I also think many of y’all are continuing to mistake private for profit forums for free speech. X, Facebook or even Clutchfans isn’t the town square. They can censor and remove users as they see fit. Even self-declared feee speech absolutists Elon Musk has had X remove posts and ban users that have been critical Of himself and governments like India and the PRC.
Trump tried to ban and force the sale of tiktok until the CCP overlords called BS to threats of blatant property seizure and broke the deal down. I don't see how either party is above the fray, let alone a thrall of Goblins worshipping a South African multibillionaire who will pull his head out of his ass in order to bend over to the CCP over issues like human rights, HK, or Taiwan.
The government must not coerce private platforms to censor free speech. But that's exactly what the Biden/Harris administration did.
Nope. You just don't own your agenda. Nothing more nothing less. One of the most dishonest people on the board
Listen, If I was running for the president, I too would play to the demographics of my audience that day. Everyone does it. Is it right? I do not know, but it has always kind of been the case. Back in my day not everyone in the world was trying to get clicks on X, by taking half sentences, and twisting them to the narrative the specific constituency wants to hear. Politics is a nasty business. Why do we think that both Trump and Harris have stated things in the last few weeks that we all thought they were on the other side of.
The best examples of actual government coercion of private entities to censor free speech come from Florida, courtesy of your favorite governor. As for the Biden admin, you keep making that claim while ignoring the Supreme Court ruling that found no concrete link proving it happened. The only case that was concrete didn’t matter because Facebook was already 'censoring' her posts, almost all of which occurred before the government’s communication with Facebook. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/...influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/ Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies. The strongest showing, she continued, came from Jill Hines, a health-care activist who is the co-director of a group that advocated against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and mask mandates. Although Facebook took various actions with regard to social media posts by Hines and her group, including restricting her account after she posted an article about increased rates of myocarditis in teenagers who received the COVID-19 vaccine, Barrett acknowledged, “Facebook was targeting her pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to ‘government-coerced enforcement’ of Facebook’s policies.”
Politicians tailor their messaging to their audience all the time. If you grew up exposed to difference types of people you will be more adept at this, and the way you speak may even change subconsciously.
Are we talking about the Brazilian government? I haven't researched it much, but I don't understand why Musk wouldn't appoint a legal representative. It seems like he's taking a political stand and refusing to follow a lawful order (portraying himself as a staunch free speech advocate). But why did he comply with China’s much stricter control on free speech? He said he would follow local laws, yet here he’s being selective. Anyway, this belongs in the Musk thread, but I think he lacks any moral or principled ground to stand on. Brazilian Supreme Court to Shut Down Elon Musk's Platform X (devdiscourse.com)
There were evidences — only one strong case that didn’t matter (no standing I guess). Other than that, not much at all. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/...influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/ Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies. The strongest showing, she continued, came from Jill Hines, a health-care activist who is the co-director of a group that advocated against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and mask mandates. Although Facebook took various actions with regard to social media posts by Hines and her group, including restricting her account after she posted an article about increased rates of myocarditis in teenagers who received the COVID-19 vaccine, Barrett acknowledged, “Facebook was targeting her pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to ‘government-coerced enforcement’ of Facebook’s policies.”
Go **** yourself ... or stick your thinly veiled racist BS back up your ass from whence it came. Have a nice day.
And while we’re talking about censorship in the private sector, it’s not Harris you need to worry about. Trump has explicitly stated (and took executive action) that he would go after private entities. This is another issue where the some on the right claims to be concerned about censorship but, at the same time, supports suppression of freedom of speech for private entities. Notable examples of people who claim to support free speech but actually oppose it are the governor of Florida, Musk, and Trump. Examples: Trump frequently attacked the media, referring to them as the "enemy of the people." He has repeatedly suggested weakening legal protections for the press. For example, in 2017, he tweeted about wanting to challenge NBC's broadcast license because he was unhappy with their coverage. In 2018, Trump expressed his desire to make it easier to sue news organizations for libel, which could have a chilling effect on free press. Trump has also targeted private companies. For instance, he threatened to take action against Amazon by influencing its postal rates and potentially encouraging antitrust investigations because of his displeasure with the Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Trump has threatened and taken steps to challenge social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook after they began labeling or restricting his posts. He signed an executive order aimed at limiting the legal protections these companies enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which could have significant implications for how these platforms operate.
Reminds me of Trump on abortion. In front of extreme pro-life crowd, Trump says "I took down Roe". In front of the MSM, Trump says that "6 week abortion limits are too extreme".
