The claim was that the liberal media broadcasted a speech by Farakhan. Not that someone took his picture standing next to Obama.
Correct, Farrakhan and the Nation have zero influence with politicians in the USA. It's not like pictures of influential politicians with Farrakhan have been hidden for several years.
The claim was that the liberal media broadcasted a speech by Farakhan. Not that someone took his picture standing next to Obama.
destroying someones account without any warning or opportunity to meet any guidelines is draconian....even for the far alt left that now runs youtube.
its based in california so this should have been no surprise
The SPLC and ADL are now censoring social media for big brother. Years ago I warned that Silicon Valley was not what people thought it was, and now its proven true. This is the Silicon Valley left demonstrating they hold to none of the principles of the founders, freedom of speech is to them a mere inconvenience as they cannot compete on the marketplace of ideas. For all the talk of russian interference and fake news, these people prove they are not concerned with the principle, just who is doing the rigging. Proving the case, they are not to be trusted with the 1st let alone the 2nd amendment, and are unfit to lead.
Zero strike account Sargon of Akkad taken down simply out of spite, all part of a wave of censorship in the wake of the Florida shooting.
:
They sure did go to some serious lengths to bury a photo though didn't they. Can't pretend to not like him, that would certainly piss off the base.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-obama-farrakhan-photo-photographer-says.html
Here's a "pro-tip" for you. You aren't qualified to give pro-tips here, this isn't your nambla meeting, you disgusting pos, and you aren't in charge.
Got it? Good.
I'm done with you now, you may leave.
Oh and you seem really angry. Get some help.
You do understand that what we call "Social Media" doesn't operate in the same manner as a local bakery? Right? So trying to make the comparison is silly to say the least. Social media has become the new outlet and source of information and several of the companies listed actually own and control the physical hardware that transmits and stores various bits of information,even the bits that are not related to "Social Media". Do you think that they will stop censoring efforts at the boundaries of twitter, facebook, instagram, or other social media platforms? Those companies are positioning themselves to be every Libtard's wet dream of a totalitarian utopia. All your opinions are belonging to us, I guess.
Keep on Derping!
Protip, fucking dipshit.
No one, as is, not a god damn person, gives one fuck what Louis Farrakhan says.
Ever.
The NRA has its own god damn cable channel.
Stop being the god damn dipshit you are, and stop being a huge fucking victim of your own making.
Jesus. Christ.
so what you are looking for is government regulation and licensing of social media to prevent these awful "Orwellian" things to happen to your favored trollbots?
I guess freedoms only apply to you and your group-think totalitarian buddies? I'm not surprised that you sign off on companies, that control vast portions of the internet and digital information exchanges, getting into the censorship business with questionable entities.
You have the FREEDOM to start your own private company allow whatever speech you want on it.
That is the freedom that is in question here and it hasn't been taken away from you.
What do you think the barrier of entry is into the market of building data centers, deploying thousands of miles of fiber cable, and switching networks? I'll run down to my local credit union and get a loan to pay for that setup. You do understand that those large tech companies own large portions of the physical structure for the internet? What is to stop them from controlling any and all bits of information?
What do you think the barrier of entry is into the market of building data centers, deploying thousands of miles of fiber cable, and switching networks? I'll run down to my local credit union and get a loan to pay for that setup. You do understand that those large tech companies own large portions of the physical structure for the internet? What is to stop them from controlling any and all bits of information?
What do you think the barrier of entry is into the market of building data centers, deploying thousands of miles of fiber cable, and switching networks? I'll run down to my local credit union and get a loan to pay for that setup. You do understand that those large tech companies own large portions of the physical structure for the internet? What is to stop them from controlling any and all bits of information?
This is a strange thread.
People on the Right want government to stop private companies from discrimination.
People on the Left think the government needs to stay out and let companies discriminate.
What a weird world.
The SPLC and ADL are now censoring social media for big brother. Years ago I warned that Silicon Valley was not what people thought it was, and now its proven true. This is the Silicon Valley left demonstrating they hold to none of the principles of the founders, freedom of speech is to them a mere inconvenience as they cannot compete on the marketplace of ideas. For all the talk of russian interference and fake news, these people prove they are not concerned with the principle, just who is doing the rigging. Proving the case, they are not to be trusted with the 1st let alone the 2nd amendment, and are unfit to lead.
What's weird about it? For liberals it's entirely consistent with decades, if not centuries of their views towards discrimination. ie: discrimination is fine so long as it's based on someone's actions and not their intrinsic attributes. You behave badly, you get kicked out of the club. Twitter/Facebook/etc are discriminating based on actions.
Conservatives on the other hand are in a bit of a pickle as they consistently argue for people to be able to discriminate for whatever reasons they see fit, and then whine when people discriminate. I imagine this is because their viewpoint is more tribal than ideological. ie: it's bad to discriminate in this case because the people being discriminated against are conservatives.
I guess freedoms only apply to you and your group-think totalitarian buddies? I'm not surprised that you sign off on companies, that control vast portions of the internet and digital information exchanges, getting into the censorship business with questionable entities.
That barrier is high, but you need to provide evidence that is the barrier that is preventing you from starting your business which so fart I'm not aware of any tier 1 backbone providers being dragged into this mess. BTW this is another reason why you should support net neutrality.
However there is NO obligation for ANY private company to give you a platform to express yourself on.
Ah, so banning a gay married couple is perfectly fine because they got married and that action you find to be immoral. So long as you don't ban gay people for just being gay its fine. Also, totally fine to ban Muslims as that is a belief and not an intrinsic attribute. They can choose to stop being Muslim any time. Lets also ban women, because, as we know gender is a social construct and is chosen and anyone that chooses to be female gotta go!
again tell me what freedoms are being violated. But you still responded in a manner that essentially requires government oversight to get what you want. Note that I haven't criticized that suggestion. I'm just asking for clarification.
What is the definition of a "platform"? Google and other tech companies have laid fiber cables and a lot of computing devices is run on amazon, google, and microsoft's cloud infrastructure so they could technically own/control vast portions of the internet and communications.