Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4599
    MEMBERS
  • 102260
    MESSAGES
  • 5
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Twitter Gets Hit with the Censorship Law   The Newsy You: News of Today

Started Dec-29 by WALTER784; 1298 views.
Msg 4 of 41 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 3
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jan-6

My complaint with Berenson is that he’s a writer not a scientist. He’s not even an expert. He’s an ordinary person who has a platform.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 5 of 41 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 4
WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jan-6

Showtalk said...

My complaint with Berenson is that he’s a writer not a scientist. He’s not even an expert. He’s an ordinary person who has a platform.

Oh, so because he's a writer and not a scientist, it's OK to selectively ban him from the platform and tarnishing his reputation in the process even if what he posts is true?

Come on now... that's bashing the person, not the content of what he wrote... even though it was true.

On another note, this guy is a scientist:

>>> Prominent vaccine scientist banned from Twitter for spreading anti-vaxx content<<< Prominent virologist kicked off Twitter for spreading anti-vaxx video | Metro News

And this guy was too:

>>>YouTube and Twitter delete Joe Rogan interview with scientist who helped invent mRNA vaccines: Dr Robert Malone claimed US is now like Nazi Germany with society 'hypnotized' to believe in vaccines and extreme pandemic measures<<< YouTube and Twitter delete Joe Rogan interview with scientist who helped invent MRNA vaccines | Daily Mail Online

So is it OK if he's not a scientist but not OK if he's a scientist... or wait... maybe it's OK if he's a scientist too? </sarcasm off>

I think you get my drift!

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 6 of 41 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 5
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jan-6

That isn’t my point. I just don’t like him.  I wasn’t talking about YouTube or Twitter. He’s an opportunist.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 7 of 41 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 6
WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jan-7

Well then, opportunist or not... if his defamation suit can stick it to big tech, then more power to him.

He does seem to have a case. 

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 8 of 41 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 7
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jan-9

We will see.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 9 of 41 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 8
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Jan-16

It may end up like this Facebook defamation suit:

[Click and Enter Attorney Name], State Bar No (wattsupwiththat.com)

But in the defamation suit with Facebook, Stossel may have lost, but he put Facebook in a very precarious and potentially future legal fodder case against Facebook...

The attorneys representing Facebook, Inc., which has now transitioned into Meta Platforms, Inc., in a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel claiming that he was defamed by a "fact check" Facebook used to label a video by him as "misleading," Meta's attorneys assert that the "fact check" was an "opinion," not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts.  Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.
 
So Facebook admits they don't fact check and that those things they supposedly fact check are just opinions by others and not actual fact checking. (* CHUCKLE *)
 
I see quite a few more lawsuits over this for Facebook, and depending upon the outcome of this Twitter ordeal... perhaps they too will slip up and admit to something that could perhaps legally jeopardize them in the future too.
 
But like you said... we'll just have to wait and see.
 
FWIW
 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 10 of 41 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 8
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Jan-16

And then there is this... I believe the battle against big tech will continue for quite some time...

One Year Ago, Big Tech Declared Open War On America. Here’s What’s Next

BY: CHRISTOPHER BEDFORD
JANUARY 08, 2022

Big Tech hates us, and they aren’t going to stop.
 
President Donald Trump was permanently suspended from Twitter one year ago this day. In the ensuing turmoil, it’s easy to forget why. Ask near-any self-declared politico around Washington, D.C., and you’ll hear an unsure and uncertain allusion to the Capitol riot.
 
It’s important to understand their reasons, however, to understand what’s in store for the rest of our country.
 
Fortunately, we don’t need to wonder; Twitter was open and upfront on the issue — at least as much as they ever are: The sitting president of the United States, they declared, had sent two terrible and unpardonable tweets.
 
First, he’d written that the political movement he’d started would continue into the future, and wouldn’t be disrespected:
 
The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!
 
Second, he said he wouldn’t be attending President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration in two weeks’ time. “To all of those who have asked,” he wrote, “I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
 
These violated their “Glorification of Violence” policy, Twitter claimed, and so the president was “immediately permanently suspended from the service.”
 
It’s a private company, Twitter’s defenders insist, so it doesn’t need remotely passable reasons to ban the president from messaging his 90 million followers. “If you don’t like it, build your own,” sort of thing.
 
But that was as much a lie as the justification for banning the president, and the next night, Parler — an alternative to Twitter that had rocketed to the most-downloaded app on the planet literally overnight — was nearly destroyed by a combined attack from Apple, Google, and Amazon Web Services.
 
Parler had been used to organize the riot, Big Tech claimed. This turned out to be another lie, but it didn’t matter. The week’s riot had given them all the rope they needed for hangings, with corporate media — those bold lovers of the First Amendment — jeering and cheering them on their way.
 
The Capitol riot was used as an excuse for deplatforming an American president and smashing a private company, but it wasn’t the reason: The illiberal left has long used any pretense at all to justify its centralization of control and crushing of dissent; and Big Tech, once a free-wheeling vehicle for decentralized innovation, is now no more than an arm of the illiberal left.
 
During the 2020 election, Big Tech worked hand in glove with Democrats and corporate media to suppress the true story of Hunter Biden’s corruption and defend their candidate under completely unproven pretenses.
 
In 2021, they went after conservative leaders on their platforms and cut the foundations out from a competitor’s platform.
 
Barring dissenting voices from social media wasn’t enough, however. Democratic politicians had fled Texas for weeks in an attempt to stop their colleagues from curtailing their states’ abortion regime, but once the left was defeated, Big Tech deplatformed Texan Christians on their own website. Corporate media cheered.
 
Public health is the excuse used to silence doctors, scientists, and parents challenging the administration’s COVID orthodoxy. “Graphic content” is used as the excuse to silence artists highlighting the Taliban’s brutal rule in the wake of the administration’s retreat from Afghanistan.
 
Every week, the left grows bolder in their censorship-and-control campaign: On Jan. 6, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee introduced legislation to, “outlaw attempts by candidates and elected officials to spread lies about free and fair elections when it has the likelihood to spread violence.”
 
What constitutes a lie — and what constitutes violence — well, that’s up to Jay and the boys.
 
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 11 of 41 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 9
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jan-16

But he lost.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 12 of 41 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 10
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jan-16

That’s why he was banned?  Ridiculous.  They made assumptions and adding meaning to his words that isn’t there.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 13 of 41 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 11
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Jan-17

His legal case was to wide spread and didn't directly express the points that should have been made.

And of course, bit tech's fancy lawyers found a loophole in the way he worded the case and thus were able to deflect that specific case.

But in doing so, Facebook admitted they don't fact check and that those things they supposedly fact check are just opinions by others and not actual fact checking. That will come back to bite them because they cannot unsay that. So that will work against them in future cases.

And if he can get a better lawyer and reword his original case more specifically, he may still get another chance.

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Keep Reading
TOP