[Goranhammer]

He was the bloody POTUS claiming over and over again that the election was stolen and hence the Biden presidency illegitimate. How the fuck does that not incite violence at inauguration day?

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

It seems as if you have the Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation if you think that making a political claim - be it true or not - is a sure harbinger for a violent coup.


Were people storming government buildings in the mid 90s when the Senate refused to convict Clinton after the House impeached him, when we know for absolute fact that he committed perjury? No. Why? Because a political claim is not a sure harbinger for a violent coup.

Bolded for emphasis and to make sure you grasp this simple fact.

[Juin]

Yep. I remember one (privately owned) social network that become the point of exodus after more popular (and privately owned) social networks evaluated their persional privately owned opinion by starting to ban trampists. And this privately owned social network, it was banned by privately owned app providers (based on their privately owned weighted decision) in 24 hours or something? It cracks me how people heroically defend the right of private owners to not serve blacks.

That was Parler.

Privately owned app providers- having sat as Judge, Jury and Prosecutor- ruled that Parler was guilty of conspiracy and insurrection to overthrow the government of the United States. But there was a problem. Conservatives, by the thousands, were voting with their feet. They were upping and heading to Parler. That would have made a mockery of Big Tech's ruling. Parler had to be deep sixed. Amazon would not even allow it to use its bytes. So Parler went dark for months.

Mind you that at no point did the DOJ or the FBI- all regular constituted authorities- target Parler. As a matter of fact no one was investigated simply for being on Parler. DOJ and FBI were guided only by an individual(s) actions which may have violated laws. DOJ and FBI did not pass over Facebook, Twitter etc in their investigations. Not one got off scot free for violating the laws just because they did that on Facebook.

So there is a gap between Justice as pursued by FBI and DOJ, and "Justice" as run by Faceboo, Twitter.

But Parler is back

[Unthinking Majority]

There is the Department of Justice and FBI to deal with that. Facebook should refer everything to them.

Any individual should be free to "lie"; unless we are to live in a world where only cnn lies but Trump cannot lie.

Those who stormed the Capitol, as you put; but which in actuality was nothing more than some vandalism accompanied by political rhetoric, are being tried by the DOJ. And what the hell is Facebook supposed to be doing: protecting us from "damaging speech"? Good Lord! So the age of enlightenment liberated us from medieval censorship only for 21st Century to restore censorship in the person of Facebook?

Unfortunately a lot of Americans are too fucking stupid for free speech on facebook i guess. If people are going to behave like children they'll be treated as such and get a timeout in the corner.

Vandals don't bring hand ties and start looking for Pence and Pelosi.

[The Resister]

You think so? Try banning black people. Try banning women. Try banning immigrants. Try banning people of a particular religion. Try banning homosexuals. Facebook is a publicly traded company. It has to abide by rules. You're watching way too much television if you believe something like that. Congress has plenary authority to regulate interstate commerce.


They are probably going to get regulated like public utilities at some point, as shareholders are not going to want to see their equity positions diminished by arbitrary leftists within corporate America.


It was stolen. He's not a dictator. He's a private citizen.


Well, they don't have their own army yet.


They are just another CIA-funded operation that blew back on them in ways they didn't expect. They were hoping to use six-degrees-of-separation type stuff to get to bin Laden, push the Arab Spring, etc. They did not expect that Al Qaeda would use it to radicalize others, or that populists would end up fighting the establishment. So now they are coming up with arbitrary rules and trying to enforce them in hopes that it will shape public opinion. It is. However, like blowback, it's shaping public opinion in a way that they didn't expect.


It's a bit of a side show. YouTube and their likes induce people into creating content on their platform, and then later make rules in an arbitrary manner. These are considered "adhesion contracts" in other scenarios, where bargaining power is so lopsided as to be manifestly unfair. So I think their ability to make platform rules will come under scrutiny, and they may become liable for damages in some cases.


I think he knows that. He's just trolling.


Yes, but he told them to be peaceful and obey law enforcement. The establishment got a whole lot less than it deserved for the Red Mirage. They are scared now, and they should be. Constitutions are just words on paper. If people don't believe them, they are worthless--like hyperinflated currency.


Even Trump supporters like InfoWars founder, Alex Jones, were out there with bullhorns telling people not to break any laws, not to be violent, etc. Either way, I don't care because I don't like the American political establishment and I find it highly amusing how scared they are now. The protesters weren't even armed. The establishment knows that it's skating on thin ice, but it doesn't know how to course correct.

It's hysterical. Nancy Pelosi is a complete tyrannical cunt in calling for endless investigations of her political dissidents. Meanwhile, Sergey Lavrov makes fun of the Biden administration for obvious human rights violations by keeping peaceful protesters in solitary confinement before trial when they are no danger to anyone. The Democrats hate the US constitution (along with some lily livered Republicans). The establishment has made a joke of the Bill of Rights, while pushing things like men playing women's sports as transgenders. Who wants to be ruled by these clowns anymore? I certainly do not.


A lot have. They've even boycotted news outlets. Have you seen their ratings? Utterly in the toilet. YouTubers get more views than Don Lemon gets. The only thing holding FoxNews up is Tucker Carlson. Establishment Republicans like Paul Ryan have ruined what FoxNews had in terms of political influence. Mark Dice gets literally twice the views from videos he makes in his kitchen as Don Lemon's ratings backed by the mega broadcasting institutional resources of CNN. It's hilarious.

I admire your zeal. HOWEVER, the reality is that jumping off Facebook to support YouTube is going from the frying pan into the fire. I would agree that most people are fed up with the left wing, liberal, socialist, progressive, communists, and atheists along with their legions of followers. When I started threads on unalienable Rights, even the kosher conservatives that are liberal trolls in disguise failed to help promote the notion of forcing the politicians to acknowledge and keep their word to guarantee the Bill of Rights. What good are Rights if you lack the mechanism of forcing the government to comply? If Trump supporters don't support the efforts of other groups, of what use is complaining about how bad things are?

Beyond Trump supporters, I'm failing to see a cohesive "movement" that can articulate to you their concept of making America Great Again. Trump never laid out a plan for what his vision of "America" would look like. He's merely made a living off of swearing at the weaknesses and stupidity of the left. His legacy did not see a single major bill enacted into law. The Art of the Deal didn't work and the pabulum puking liberal Joe Biden saw major legislation in under 100 days. When the sell outs among the Republicans show themselves to be what they are, Trump denounces them, but which ones are actually proposing laws as opposed to politically kissing the man's ass for his endorsement? Trump supporters have failed to articulate a real vision for the future of America.

I came from a different era. We dreamed of exposing the illegally ratified 14th and 16th Amendments and do away with rulings that nullified the Bill of Rights and made them mere privileges (14th Amendment rulings) and eliminate the income tax (a plank out of the Communist Manifesto). We lobbied for getting the federal government out of education and welfare and to stop the incessant assaults on the family and the Rights of churches. We fought against the NEW WORLD ORDER, One World Government, One Race, One Religion, agenda by global elitists. We stood up for the Republic (most modern Americans can't say that word any longer). If Trump spent a couple of million and created a serious social media site he would not be beholden to people that hate his guts to let him exercise his Rights as would be expected out of any other private business.

[Juin]

Unfortunately a lot of Americans are too fucking stupid for free speech on facebook i guess. If people are going to behave like children they'll be treated as such and get a timeout in the corner.

Vandals don't bring hand ties and start looking for Pence and Pelosi.

Sounds to me like straight from Stalin's playbook. Why just a timeout in a corner, set up American gulags for them!

[Juin]

If Trump spent a couple of million and created a serious social media site he would not be beholden to people that hate his guts to let him exercise his Rights as would be expected out of any other private business.

Actually Trump doesnt even have to create his own social media site. There were, and are the likes of Parler, Newsmax, One America News.... All of them diehard Trump supporters. So why does Trump not boost them up by actively engaging there?? Is it that it may reduce him to a mere team player? He had four years to do that and did nothing. If he had been boosting the sites of his diehard supporters the sting of banishment would have been a lot less when it came.

[MistyTiger]

This kind of spits in the face of anyone who believes in basic freedoms in America, as well as identifying overreaching and postulating.

Basic freedoms in America? When the United States was established, social media did not exist. I do not think that the forefathers considered posting via websites to be a basic freedom.

There are more pressing issues than free speech on the webs. What about the freedom to bear arms or freedom from discrimination? The voting legislation that states have enacted in the past year are abominations and those "spit" in the face of democracy.

[Juin]

Basic freedoms in America? When the United States was established, social media did not exist. I do not think that the forefathers considered posting via websites to be a basic freedom.

The founding fathers are dead and gone with. The dead do not legislate for the living. Today's populations are increasingly expressing themselves on social media. Regular constituted authorities, and not Big Tech Corporate ruffians, have the duty and obligation to adjudicate matters there.

[Godstud]

Trump used his platform on social media to incite violence. Your freedom to free speech ends when that happens. He deserves that, and more.

The 1st Amendment doesn't cover social media, only government intervention into free speech. Pretending more only shows lack of knowledge about what the 1st Amendment actually is.

[colliric]

Trump used his platform on social media to incite violence. Your freedom to free speech ends when that happens. He deserves that, and more.

The 1st Amendment doesn't cover social media, only government intervention into free speech. Pretending more only shows lack of knowledge about what the 1st Amendment actually is.

Well than the first amendment is a toothless useless law. So there's no freedom of speech at all then. Got it.

Iconic definition of Freedom of speech: I don't like what you are saying, I even think it might be hate speech, but I'll defend to the death your god-given right to say it. And I expect the same from you, as I argue against you.

Don't be surprised when the "Fox News of Social Media" comes along then. Gab's user base has surged recently.

Everyone knows your political party basically controls these apps now, the same way we know Hollywood is controlled by the Democrats too. Look how Hollywood has struggled financially in the last few years, HAVE to pander to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party to keep their profits up.

So the democratic party is now the party of censorship.... Got it!

Godstud supports high levels of censorship fellas. Use his post there as proof.

Freedom of speech doesn't have any limitations like he implied that it does. It's called "freedom" for a reason. You cannot take it away, and anyone that believes "freedom" can be removed for any reason at all is either a liar, ignorant, a communist(or fascist) or pure evil. You can sue people for slander and sue them for hate speech, but you cannot take away their God given right to say such things and should be defending their right to say it to the death.

[The Resister]

Actually Trump doesnt even have to create his own social media site. There were, and are the likes of Parler, Newsmax, One America News.... All of them diehard Trump supporters. So why does Trump not boost them up by actively engaging there?? Is it that it may reduce him to a mere team player? He had four years to do that and did nothing. If he had been boosting the sites of his diehard supporters the sting of banishment would have been a lot less when it came.

I would agree with you except that I admit to being a Luddite and IIRC, the powers that be shut Parler down once since this crap has been going on.

The controlled news media is so freaking corrupt that they lock Trump out due to the fact that he was ballsy enough to challenge the election results. The news media keeps saying there was no voter fraud and if you call them on it, they walk it back to "no widespread voter fraud." Whether you like the man or don't like him, there was fraud. When the Republicans have tried to audit the election results to make the process transparent, the democrats and the news media block it and the mainstream media keeps acting like they are some kind of Political Action Committee by getting their subliminal lie in that there was no fraud.

I call B.S. on it because where I live, voters voted in the their home state, then came to Georgia, registered and voted a second time. Stacey Abrams, a gubernatorial candidate that lost, helps register people through a non-profit organization. When the issue of voter fraud goes to court, it is Stacey's sister that is the judge on at least one relevant case. You can't get much more corrupt than a judge in your pocket:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-BB1cjVO7

https://news.yahoo.com/warnock-under-in ... 35365.html

These news stories are fantastical B.S. when you look at the reality. Stacey Abrams FALSELY claims that there was voter suppression. How does she account for the FACT that Gwinnett county was ALL Republican before the election and Democrats over-turned Gwinnett County, taking virtually every elective office from the city level to the United States Senate? Where is this voter suppression? Among the 1268 fraudulent votes in that one county fraudulent votes clearly and unequivocally benefited the Democrats. BTW, Georgia has 159 counties. You do the math. BTW Stacey lost because she is an over-rated hack that got lots of help early in life from the elites. She didn't lose because of voter suppression. Trump lost in Georgia because people who were no legally registered had their illegal votes counted and upheld by corrupt Demoncrats.

Trump needs a better platform and if he isn't helping the people like Parler, Newsmax, etc. you should be wondering why. As for me, I voted for him and then he signed that Executive Order banning bump stocks and proving he is NOT pro Second Amendment. Then my research turned up his real record on the Right to keep and bear Arms. I'd never support him, but I will not grace Facebook with my presence as they are not the moral conscience of America and if they support censorship, you are not a real Trump supporter if you have a Facebook page. You cannot finance your own destruction and then not expect to lose.

[Saeko]

Freedom of speech doesn't have any limitations like he implied that it does. It's called "freedom" for a reason. You cannot take it away, and anyone that believes "freedom" can be removed for any reason at all is either a liar, ignorant, a communist(or fascist) or pure evil. You can sue people for slander and sue them for hate speech, but you cannot take away their God given right to say such things and should be defending their right to say it to the death.

Yes it does. You're the one who doesn't understand how freedom of speech works in AMERICA.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's it. Nowhere there is any citizen guaranteed the privilege of using another's property or services to say anything that the owner of said property doesn't like.

There have always been forms of speech not protected by the first amendment. This includes things like threats, incitements to violence or insurrection, disseminating pornography to minors or outside of certain venues, endangering the public (by e.g. yelling "fire!" in a crowded place), and so on.

EDIT: In addition, the first amendment also protects citizens from compelled speech. In other words, the owners of Facebook, Twitter, etc. cannot be compelled to host whatever content their users want to post.

[Godstud]

Well than the first amendment is a toothless useless law. So there's no freedom of speech at all then.

Freedom of speech is never truly free, as there are limits. These limits are perfectly reasonable and rational.

eg. You can't yell out, "Fire!", in a packed movie theatre, for instance. There are slander laws, etc.

@Saeko spells it out quite clearly.

Iconic definition of Freedom of speech: I don't like what you are saying, I even think it might be hate speech, but I'll defend to the death your god-given right to say it. And I expect the same from you, as I argue against you.

That's just dumb and shows that you have no understanding on the topic. You think you can say anything without consequence, and that is never the case.

Were I to threaten to kill you, would you also protect that "free speech"? There are always limits to ANY rights. Those limits are when they can cause harm to others.

Godstud supports high levels of censorship fellas. Use his post there as proof.

That's a really dumb thing to say. I recognize that freedom of speech has limits.

Look everyone! colliric supports rampant ignorance and stupidity. Use his post there as proof!

[blackjack21]

I admire your zeal. HOWEVER, the reality is that jumping off Facebook to support YouTube is going from the frying pan into the fire.

Oh, I'm not saying YouTube is the answer. YouTube is a dying platform. My only preference for it is user interface design and the TV app. I'm not a millennial, so I'm not going to watch YouTube videos on my phone. I will watch on my big screen TV. However, I do have to go to Rumble periodically, because of YouTube's censorship. I don't think BitChute has a TV app yet.

My point was that even in view of YouTube's censorship, someone like Mark Dice makes a smart ass video in his kitchen and he still gets twice as many views as Don Lemon gets on CNN even with YouTube banning his content from suggested videos. I cannot even get his latest videos in my subscriptions feed. I have to go directly to his channel. In that environment, Mark Dice is still twice as popular as Don Lemon with CNN broadcasting all over the world. Take off the censorship, and Mark Dice is naturally about 3-4 times as popular.

Trump never laid out a plan for what his vision of "America" would look like. He's merely made a living off of swearing at the weaknesses and stupidity of the left.

Well, honestly Trump was way out of his depth. I think he was really surprised that he won. Beyond the bravado is a much nicer person. That's why Trump didn't wholesale fire every Obama holdover straight away. Bush fired a lot of Clinton holdovers. He understood to some extent. When he got into office, Clinton administration people had pried the "W" letters off of every keyboard.

His legacy did not see a single major bill enacted into law.

That's overstating it. He did get his tax reform passed, and that was a big deal in getting US companies to repatriate their profits. That in turn led to an increase in gross investment, stock buybacks, and job market growth. He completely rewrote NAFTA. He fixed a very broken Veteran's Administration. He also passed prison sentencing reform.

The Art of the Deal didn't work and the pabulum puking liberal Joe Biden saw major legislation in under 100 days.

Stimulus. Trump also passed three of those. So if they are major for Biden, fair is fair, and it's major for Trump too. Biden is trying to sell a $6T "infrastructure" bill that has very little infrastructure spending in it, and he's having trouble getting it passed.

I came from a different era. We dreamed of exposing the illegally ratified 14th and 16th Amendments and do away with rulings that nullified the Bill of Rights and made them mere privileges (14th Amendment rulings) and eliminate the income tax (a plank out of the Communist Manifesto).

Yes. I've always said that Trump wasn't a conservative. He was an old school, mid-20th Century Democrat--which they now consider racist, right-wing extremist, etc. However, Trump and McConnell also did a lot with the courts. In federal terms, I live in the 9th Circus. A federal district court judge just overturned Roberti-Roos, California's 30-year old assault weapons ban. Previously, federal courts overturned the high capacity magazine ban. I bought 10 30-round clips. I still haven't opened the box.

We lobbied for getting the federal government out of education and welfare and to stop the incessant assaults on the family and the Rights of churches. We fought against the NEW WORLD ORDER, One World Government, One Race, One Religion, agenda by global elitists.

Well, what's positive is that they are hated all over the world as well as in the United States.

The voting legislation that states have enacted in the past year are abominations and those "spit" in the face of democracy.

Why do you say that? Do you think your own voting laws are an abomination? Non-Americans love to pitch socialized medicine to us. Yet, what if we adopted your voting laws? What if we just required voter ID? Suddenly, you are horrified at US states doing what every major democracy in Europe does regularly.

Trump used his platform on social media to incite violence.

No. He didn't. In fact, he didn't do anything that the Democrats haven't done after every election loss since Nixon. They said Reagan had an October surprise. That he stole Democrat debate talking points. That Bush I was a racist running Willy Horton ads. That W stole the election in Florida in 2000. That he stole the election in 2004 in Ohio. Then, they tried to frame Trump as some sort of Russian puppet. There is absolutely no virtue in the Washington political establishment.

Everyone knows your political party basically controls these apps now, the same way we know Hollywood is controlled by the Democrats too. Look how Hollywood has struggled financially in the last few years, HAVE to pander to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party to keep their profits up.

Yea. I think there is a massive market opportunity as the old system collapses. I don't have cable or even a streaming TV service now. I can stream stuff on Amazon, but they don't have too much I want to watch. I cancelled my Netflix too. I see no reason to pay for propaganda. I will turn it back on in September, because my friends like to come watch football on my big screen and hear it in Dolby Atmos. If the NFL just got a little smarter, they could capture 100% of the revenue instead of sharing it with cable or streaming services. I wouldn't even support the NFL either, but my friends want to watch football. Sadly, we can't enjoy the pre-game anymore as it's all Chicom propaganda too.

The controlled news media is so freaking corrupt that they lock Trump out due to the fact that he was ballsy enough to challenge the election results.

Challenging elections is something the Democrats have done to every Republican president since Reagan. It's hilarious that they are so petrified. We just need a lot more mass rallies to really scare the shit out of them.

These news stories are fantastical B.S. when you look at the reality. Stacey Abrams FALSELY claims that there was voter suppression. How does she account for the FACT that Gwinnett county was ALL Republican before the election and Democrats over-turned Gwinnett County, taking virtually every elective office from the city level to the United States Senate? Where is this voter suppression?

Ha! Yeah. 30M more people voted in 2020. These people and their bullshit is so transparent anymore, that nobody believes anything they say.

As for me, I voted for him and then he signed that Executive Order banning bump stocks and proving he is NOT pro Second Amendment.

Yeah. I agree. However, the courts are striking down a lot of the unconstitutional gun control laws. A lot of it is liberal thinking too, because the laws overwhelmingly hurt black people.

Nowhere there is any citizen guaranteed the privilege of using another's property or services to say anything that the owner of said property doesn't like.

Utilities are governed this way, and I imagine social media will be governed that way soon enough. Politicians around the world do not like what happened to Trump, and it's not because they don't like Trump. It's because they don't want it happening to them.

[Goranhammer]

I really don't like to invoke the First Amendment to this because it hasn't quite reached that level...yet. However, at this rate, it's on its way.

It's been recognized by many, including myself, that social media is being bullied and threatened by the Democratic party to do its bidding. This couldn't have been made any more clear to anyone who watched the 2020 Democratic nominee debates, where everyone was feeding at the "dismantle Facebook" trough.

Combine this, along with U.S.C. § 230, and you have what is essentially a government entity. At this point, First Amendment does play a role and should be enforced.

[noemon]

You think so? Try banning black people. Try banning women. Try banning immigrants. Try banning people of a particular religion. Try banning homosexuals. Facebook is a publicly traded company. It has to abide by rules. You're watching way too much television if you believe something like that. Congress has plenary authority to regulate interstate commerce.

You need to understand at some point that these arguments succeed nothing but to simply give you away.

Facebook bans black people, women, immigrants and religious people ALL the frigging time. I highly doubt you will find a single person that is political active that has not been banned or censored at some point in facebook. People who break its TOS get banned by the droves.

The one and only black person in here has been banned more times you have got a warning for.

Second I see some people still insisting that the BLM are as guilty as Trump for inciting people to insurrection.

You have made similar arguments from what I recall and once again it simply betrays the extreme bias of these people.

The BLM fight for the right of Black people to a life free from racism, Trump and his supporters were fighting for sedition.

The BLM Leaders do not rally people to seditious activities, they rally them to protest. Some protests get out of hand either because of the police or because of the protesters, that has been true for all protests in history and across the entire world. It does not justify sedition in any way, shape or form nor does it undermine the constitutional right to protest.

[wat0n]

Facebook did ban people who were inciting violence (e.g. looting) back in 2020, regardless of their ideology (if they even had one). Also, Trump wasn't banned due to his ideology but for something a lot more concrete than that.

[Juin]

Facebook did ban people who were inciting violence (e.g. looting) back in 2020, regardless of their ideology (if they even had one). Also, Trump wasn't banned due to his ideology but for something a lot more concrete than that.

All those powers and prerogative should be shifted from Facebook to regular constituted authorities. It is more than whether Facebook acted justly or not; it is who made Facebook the Judge, the Prosecutor, the Jury, the Sheriff, the Legislator, the Executioner of cyberspace?

[wat0n]

All those powers and prerogative should be shifted from Facebook to regular constituted authorities. It is more than whether Facebook acted justly or not; it is who made Facebook the Judge, the Prosecutor, the Jury, the Sheriff, the Legislator, the Executioner of cyberspace?

That's complicated, I think, because it could say it's being compelled to allow that speech on its platform - also a First Amendment issue.

My only point though is that Facebook at least did ban others for behavior it alleges is incitement, regardless of their ideology. And I say this as someone who has drawn the comparison between the methods used by some BLM supporters and some Trumpists too.

[noemon]

All those powers and prerogative should be shifted from Facebook to regular constituted authorities. It is more than whether Facebook acted justly or not; it is who made Facebook the Judge, the Prosecutor, the Jury, the Sheriff, the Legislator, the Executioner of cyberspace?

The power to remove unwanted or criminal(by their TOS) elements from its own private property?

Really? and who will have the power to determine who is allowed in the other's private property?

Are you seriously arguing that a third-party should be given authority over who you let inside your own house?

Are you seriously arguing that a third-party should be given authority to compel private entities and people to a particular opinion?



I do not want racist asshats, entitled brats and aggressive nuisances in my forum and no amount of verbiage is going to compel me otherwise.