Donald Trump sues Facebook, Google and Twitter

[moonbat]

I don't believe that claim has met its burden of proof.

Not my problem if you refuse to see the numerous examples that there are out there, or expect me to play 'fetch' for you as though they're so rare and obscure as not to be found.

[WiseWolf]

babbling...

Bernie Sanders is a marxist twit wherever he is.

Beats fascism/corporate ownership over the country. :p

And that's currently what we have now...

so... yeah, it needs to change.

Besides, health care should be a human right, free college works in other countries in europe, why not here?

The list is longer than those two though.

But I will leave it at this for now.

[Marcus]

fascism

fascism=socialism same putrid, malodorous thing.
The only "human right" is freedom.
Free college doesn't work in Europe, like free health care and whatever has "free" written in it.

But I will leave it at this for now.

Good, because you only produce banalities.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I still maintain that if we had Bernie instead of Biden the world would AT LEAST be a more amusing place cause he is silly insane instead of extremely depressing dementia insane...

We'd still be going to hell in a handbasket but at least we'd get an occasional cuckle from Mr. MIttens.

[Cassette]

Not my problem if you refuse to see the numerous examples that there are out there, or expect me to play 'fetch' for you as though they're so rare and obscure as not to be found.

The burden of proof rests on those making the claim whether you like it or not. It's not my job to prove your claim. To prove your claim needs much more than "examples" of people being banned from social media. Such examples aren't even evidence in support of that claim by themselves. It's a high bar and you think it isn't.

[Lunokhod]

Sometimes free healthcare is fantastic, sometimes it has a waiting list so long you may have either died or recovered by the time you get it. Budget vaccines with limited coverage compared to private versions, cheap implanted parts that give unsatisfactory results, ambulances that take hours to turn up, no option to upgrade unless you pay the whole thing privately - reality might not meet what's imagined. The wealthy have private schemes, while the poor are "encouraged" to do so by the second rate service they receive! So it may not be so different overall to the US where the young, old and poor can get free help currently I think, although you can probably find individual cases of winners and losers on both sides.

[Moonchild]

What a nonsense thread this has become in the short space of a little over a page.
It's all over the place. And none of it has anything to do with the topic.

[Lunokhod]

Not a lot more seems to have happened yet - it could take months to reach court I expect. Searching around, I did see that Mark Zuckerberg has said the FaceBook ban will be reviewed after 2 years, after the FaceBook Oversight Board ruled it should not be an indeterminate time.

[moonbat]

The burden of proof rests on those making the claim whether you like it or not.

Start with the convenient suppression of all news about Hunter Biden's drug involvement before the last US elections.
The proof is right fucking there, like I said, find it yourself or just go away. I know how this goes, I find something, then you shift goalposts and say that it doesn't count.

To prove your claim needs much more than "examples" of people being banned from social media. Such examples aren't even evidence in support of that claim by themselves. It's a high bar and you think it isn't.

So enlighten us what your great high bar is, to prove that they selectively censor posts based on what politics are offered. I've already pointed out one of them. Need I mention Cambridge Analytica, or various internal memos by The Zucc about how they need to stop Trump at all costs during the '16 elections, or do those not count either for your shape shifting standards?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Facebook is now an arm of the Executive Branch as the White House has publicly issued intructions to further censor the American people.

Additionally, there are now no more pretences as White House Spokesmoron Raggety Ann reenforces the message that anyone spreading "misinformation" should be deplatformed and banned across the board.

Question is: will anyone care let alone do something about it or just let it stand for another 3 and a 1/2 plus years?

BTW, no I am not going to cite things with external links and here is why.. People paying attention already know this, those who don't but are receptive can and will find it easily enough, and those who won't will dismiss out of hand anyway even if it was linked to their prefered outlet because of cognitive dissonance assuming they even engage their brain enough for even that. So don't ask for direct citation. Case in point, this very thread.

As always, I refer you to the public record.

[Tharthan]

What a nonsense thread this has become in the short space of a little over a page.
It's all over the place.

And that is why threads like this really are unhelpful, in my opinion.

As you noted yourself earlier this year, Moonchild: threads like this only serve to divide the Pale Moon community and aid those who would like to cast Pale Moon as as a politically partisan browser.

Because the fact is that irrespective of whether someone is technically classified as a member of the "Pale Moon team" or not, most interested parties are well aware of who the major developers who contribute to Pale Moon are.

And if a number of those developers are all espousing roughly the same political views and beliefs, especially on heavily partisan issues, the narrative about Pale Moon will be "Ah, that's a [insert political label here] browser. All of the developers are members of [partisan political ideology X]".

Sure, one can say "such people will come to their own conclusions either way", but the problem is that it never does any good to give such people more fodder. Because then, reasonable minds who may find [partisan political ideology X] obnoxious or repugnant will look at posts that seem to suggest that what Pale Moon naysayers think (regarding what I said above) might possibly have some merit to it, and conclude that Pale Moon genuinely is an "[insert political label here] browser", and that thus it is not the browser for them irrespective of how much they may sympathise with its mission and goals.

And, frankly, I think that that sort of situation is not one that is helpful for Pale Moon at all.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Well good news for you Tharthan that this is the off-topic board and views expressed here even by actual Pale Moon Project members may not be those of the project its self.

Now fuck off, mutant.

[WiseWolf]

fascism

fascism=socialism same putrid, malodorous thing.
The only "human right" is freedom.
Free college doesn't work in Europe, like free health care and whatever has "free" written in it.

But I will leave it at this for now.

Good, because you only produce banalities.

Well, some things to ask then... what is a banality?

Two do you live in eruope? IF you don't, I highly suggest you not criticize it, for USA, health care is better... for the rich, as for everyone else, meh...
Also, health care in germany and canada is a human right, why can't the richest country in the nation have it too?

PS, socialism is not fascism, the nazis and other fascist groups just pretended to be socialists, to get their way. Also, socialism is closer towards the far left.
Fascism is the far right.

PS, the right has failed many more times then even the far left at being useful Just like at the january 6th insurrection and donald trump hinting at drinking clorox to cure covid19 among other insane things. Trump had 100+ scandals,this is the one thing the media conveyed correctly. That being said, I wish Bernie could have been president 4 years ago...
On the other hand though, his agenda would have been blocked more than any other by congress. Too many far right dopes and weak corporate democrats... :/



All this being said, I doubt I will convince anyone beyond those who already agree, no matter how many examples of trump's errors and republicans as a whole.

People who support fascism will not change their minds easily and they more often deepin despite lack of evidence to support their views...

Thus... I reply probably for the last time, before this thread gets locked. I think?

PS, I dislike google, twitter, facebook, and all centralized social media website, however when it comes to the misinformation by the republicans, they actually are doing something right about said situations, more lately...

[Moonchild]

Thus... I reply probably for the last time, before this thread gets locked. I think?

Oh so you want to just have the last word eh?

And no, this is the Off-Topic board. y'all wanted to self-regulate this so if you're not breaking what's in the red text at the top, it's much less likely there will be any locking going on.
Although i do think all this political BS should just go away to some other dedicated forum.

[Lunokhod]

A more recent update on the story:
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... ion-is-for
Also related to Facebook:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/7/21/ ... cob-sullum
It seems this kind of lawsuit is fairly rare, but a lady called Laura Loomer has sued various social media outlets after being banned, but they have failed.
Re-reading the thread I'm not sure anyone would see any particular affiliation beyond everyone using Pale Moon given the variety of views.

[Cassette]

Start with the convenient suppression of all news about Hunter Biden's drug involvement before the last US elections.

I thought we were talking about social media, not the news. What the news chooses to cover or not says nothing about whether or not social media has a bias against conservatives. Besides, how is that bias against conservatives?

So enlighten us what your great high bar is, to prove that they selectively censor posts based on what politics are offered. I've already pointed out one of them. Need I mention Cambridge Analytica, or various internal memos by The Zucc about how they need to stop Trump at all costs during the '16 elections, or do those not count either for your shape shifting standards?

You have to prove that the bias is against conservative views specifically and not some other reason. If a conservative was banned, it proves only that a conservative was banned. I don't know what point you're making with Cambridge Analytica. Are you saying that a third party group should be collecting user data without their consent? Regarding internal Facebook memos against Trump I found mentions of Andrew Bosworth who really doesn't like Trump and isn't shy about saying so. He even said he had a desire to "pull any lever" at his disposal to stop him from being reelected, but that he wouldn't and never should. So he expressed an opinion which everyone has a right to, but said he wouldn't act on it. I was unable to find anything on Zuckerberg himself saying they had to stop Trump at all costs. My standards haven't changed. You've just consistently failed to meet them.

[moonbat]

I thought we were talking about social media,

Oh yes, we most definitely are. Everything that goes against the Standard Narrative^TM shall be censored and blocked.

You have to prove that the bias is against conservative views specifically and not some other reason

You don't give a shit about anything that is shown to you, this much is clear. See the links above. And if you're going to stick fingers in your ears and go 'la la la there is no such thing as bias against conservatives by big tech corporations' then I am fucking done here.

[Batman]

Well even if platforms aren't biased I don't think it makes any difference. I don't think it's some company's job to stop lies or misinformation, people should figure out the truth for themselves. It doesn't even matter if the company's intentions are good, since being able to control speech is a lot of power, and as everyone knows, power corrupts.

[ron_1]

You have to prove that the bias is against conservative views specifically and not some other reason. If a conservative was banned, it proves only that a conservative was banned. I don't know what point you're making with Cambridge Analytica. Are you saying that a third party group should be collecting user data without their consent? Regarding internal Facebook memos against Trump I found mentions of Andrew Bosworth who really doesn't like Trump and isn't shy about saying so. He even said he had a desire to "pull any lever" at his disposal to stop him from being reelected, but that he wouldn't and never should. So he expressed an opinion which everyone has a right to, but said he wouldn't act on it. I was unable to find anything on Zuckerberg himself saying they had to stop Trump at all costs. My standards haven't changed. You've just consistently failed to meet them.

How are you going to spin this?

https://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-rgb-coverup-shows-090141917.html

[THX-1139]

I have only this to say; "lets go Brandon!"