carlimac

This is a difficult situation.  Because frankly—IF similar allegations were true, it probably *would* justify armed rebellion.  And if they are false, then they are the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater—the people behind such allegations deserve a special place in hell; and I can sympathize with Twitter not wanting to play into their hands.
But, “open forum” is “open forum”; and if social media companies want to enjoy the privileges and immunities that go with that status, then IMHO they need to leave the policing of their forums to . . . the police.  

Ah. So if you believe something that Godless doesn't like, then you lose your free speech privileges. Reckless thinking and speaking. Is that it?

It's because we live in a double standard world. It is OK for BLM, Antifa, Democratic platform to encourage, entice, promote (even fit the bill for release of criminals), and use Facebook, Google, Apple, and other outlets for their violence. We live in a very hypocritical society. If all things were issued fairly, no one would be having a complaint. If Facebook, Apple, Google, etc...called out the violence that happened for 7 months they might have a leg to stand on. But no, they encouraged it, supported it, and did nothing against those who enticed it. BLM an known marxist organization, that initiated and assisted with violence still have a Twitter account. Go figure -- shocker -- not. 

Information is essential for Human Survival.. Knowing where to find food, shelter, etc is about information as is everything else we might choose to do. If certain platforms have become dominate providers of information then yes that is an issue.  I am also old enough to remember other forms of communication that wasn't social media as well, I do not see very many of those left standing, and those that are are but shadows of there former selves (including this site).
Legally and morally... if companies want immunity to what other might say and do with there services (aka common carrier) then they can not control or restrict users or content except in the most common and general ways.  If however they wish to control the content/message then they should be liable for that content.
At this point I would love to see people sue the crap out of Facebook/Twitter etc. For all the hateful and violence promoting posts they have not removed.  Since they have abandon the pretenses of being a common carrier they should not have the protections of such.  Such arguments made in the court of law would be how we shake this out

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Looking for an alternative to the censored results of Chrome/Google search engine?
FYI: I use Firefox browser (not Chrome) with the DuckDuckGo search engine (not Google) instead.

**Not a political discussion, part of the quote removed to not focus on the political**
I was watching the Senate hearing on Election Security a couple days ago.
One of the witnesses, Judge Starr, was asked by Senator Hawley about censorship:

Question:
Answer:
I found both ideas to be extremely relevant. The need for:
1. Uninhibited debate
2. Allowing the marketplace to test the ideas of others

If someone produces a bad/inferior/faulty product, hopefully the marketplace/consumers will eventually reject that product and it will be pushed aside for a better/superior product.
If these big tech companies are censoring things, we really aren't allowed to "test the ideas" out. We are being forced a singular product/narrative only.
 

I'm not a lawyer, and the law may well be on the side of the big-3 platforms to keep section 230. On the other hand, the calls to have it removed come from consumers who feel a "bait and switch" has happened. These hugely influential platforms began as nearly unmoderated sites, allowing the free exchange of idea. They become behemoths, and rightly gained the section 230 protections, since the sites were bastions of unfettered customer-provided content. THEN, all three flipped, and said the felt obligated to moderate/restrict/censor content they found dangerous, wrong, or beneath their standards. Conservatives continue to believe that these restrictions are levied heavily against their candidates and causes. So, it's an open question as to whether they should continue to receive legal shelter given their out-size influence and alleged biased moderating.

I look forward to YouTube being broken up and sold off, along with Facebook.

Enough of what? Why didn't those who were aspiring to power on the left say ENOUGH last summer during the riots? And I would bet more than 5 died during all that. Much more was lost!
"Some of these people act like they are part of a cult, a  dangerous cult saying the President is the Chosen One, the Messiah. He has become their religion."
And lest we forget the videos that came out after Mr Obama took office of groups of children dancing and chanting his name. It happens. 💁‍♀️

I hope you can see I'm condemning violence and hypocrisy on any side. Also asking a question about personal  threshholds for "this is a bad thing that happened". And what makes one thing bad but not the other.  I'm genuinely confused.

Enough of what? Why didn't those who were aspiring to power on the left say ENOUGH last summer during the riots? And I would bet more than 5 died during all that. Much more was lost!
"Some of these people act like they are part of a cult, a  dangerous cult saying the President is the Chosen One, the Messiah. He has become their religion."
And lest we forget the videos that came out after Mr Obama took office of groups of children dancing and chanting his name. It happens. 💁‍♀️

[Trying to keep this apolitical]
It seems to me like the Capitol Hill cops generally (with some exceptions) acted the way many folks have spent the last year saying that cops should act in the fact of massive demonstrations that threaten to vandalize public property. “It’s only property . . . it’s probably insured . . . property is less important than human life . . . you should have tried to de-escalate, rather than going for a gun . . . be accommodating . . . smile . . . pose for selfies!”
I’d hate to be a police officer right now.  Those guys are literally darned if they do and darned if they don’t. 

There's been a lot of talk about "what would have happened" if the protestors had been liberals, not conservatives. The supposition is that it would have been a bloodbath.
I've never been very impressed by people who argue on the basis of what they say "would have happened" in some totally hypothetical scenario. As a kid, I was always having my nose rubbed in what I supposedly "would have done" if <blah blah blah> had happened. It's a lazy way to argue: since <blah blah blah> didn't happen, there's no way to test the assertion, and no way to refute it.
It would make some sense if they had cited what I did do in some analogous situation which really did happen - but why not just have a go at me for that, instead of building a hypothetical case based on something that didn't happen? But the argument was always carried by the strength of the dirty looks the accuser could give, and how anxious the listeners were to enjoy a feeling of righteous disgust (against me).
If Trump had won the election and Biden supporters had stormed the capitol, we really don't know what what would have happened. Bearing in mind how anxious everyone is to "appear woke", I wouldn't be surprised if they'd get a free pass. But that's speculation. To find out, we would need to visit a parallel universe.

Maybe not.
https://www.nowlivenews.com/2021/01/07/viking-who-stormed-the-capitol-building-previously-photographed-at-blm-rally-wearin/
https://america-latest-news.com/john-sullivan-a-radical-left-wing-activist-and-founder-of-insurgence-usa-filmed-trump-supporters-death/

I'll be out for a while but wanted to address one item before I go as it relates to American's belief of widespread voter fraud.
1. 35% of GOP voters didn't believe the 2020 election was free and fair before the election.
2. 70-77% of Republicans now say they don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair
So, why the change?
Some would like to lazily dismiss this change to the mindless Trumpling sheeple, holding Trump up as a demi-god, believing anything he utters.  I don't doubt that their will be some who fall into this category. Sheeple occur on both sides of the aisle, Dem & Rep.

Instead, I would attribute it more to the Republican's willingness/desire to actually watch the evidence presented during the 40+ hrs of legislative hearings that took place.
I'm not sure how many Democrats cared to invest time into hearing the actual evidence first hand, if I had to guess, I would say very few. Each of us here can ask ourselves, "Did I actually watch any significant portion of the hearings... beyond internet memes, SNL skits, headlines and cherry picked snippets?"
With the MSM suppressing the evidence that was presented, those caught in the MSM bubble would have little reason to believe there was widespread fraud.
The MSM says there was nothing to see, their guy 'won'... life carries on for the left.

In contrast, take every voting American and sit them down to watch some meaningful portion of the hearings (evidence, questioning & rebuttals)...................then take the poll again. Let's see what happens then.

Of the people who don't believe their was widespread voter fraud, how many of them are victims of the MSM/Big Tech?

It is pretty systematic of the Democratic/Liberal party.
Historically the Democratic and Republican parties have be roughly equal, swapping around the Presidency, and House and Senate Majorities.
And Historically the Democratic party have tried to lay claim to the racial and other minorities...  Trying to guilt the truly "Vast" majority into caring about the injustices they suffer and the complaints they have.
This makes it very hypocritical of them to treat the Republican membership as if they do not exist and their concerns are irrelevant.  For proof of this behavior I present the existence of Fox News as evidence.  When the largely Democratic/Liberal big news orgs started ignoring half their market, market force dictated that some one would step in and fill the void.  Thus Fox News is symptom of the largely Democratic/Liberal big news systematic neglect.
The numbers do not lie.  Most of the Republicans think there was fraud, Republicans make of of roughly half the population.  This is a injustice (even if you think it is only their minds) that affects more people then all the racial and LGBQT (Or whatever the name is currently) issues.
Yet despite this he says "Vast" majority does not think there was fraud, and the only way this comment make any sense is if for him Republican lives do not matter.
While the Democratic/Liberal parties are celebrating the removal or Trump, they fundamentally misunderstand that Trump was not the cause whose removal fixes things.  He was and is a symptom.  Since the root cause still exists and has not been dealt with, it will simply manifest another way  

Heh, like when Obama was President.

Social media sites, primarily Face Book, Twitter, and YouTube, all claimed that they were open forums, and that most of their content was user-supplied. They must not be held to account for what is on the site, because, by its nature, these sites are uncensored public domain. As a result, they got the following protection:
Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter TWTR +0.4% against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.
Of course, now they want to protect the public from dangerous content, based upon the site-owner's subjective, and usually left-leaning, perceptions. Moderates and liberals often see these as reasonable restrictions. They proclaim that private companies should be allowed to censor however they wish. OK. However, if so, then the owners are no longer disinterested providers of a user-driven content platform. They are now publishers. They are deciding what gets produced and what does not.
I oppose censorship and uphold the right of social media companies to control their platform content. Of course, Section 230 must be taken away. RIGHT???

Regardless of what someone claims they believe - there is no justice between birth and death.  Without the belief of an afterlife where all that commit injustices in this life will be held accountable - no one can claim that they believe in justice or that justice exist or is in any way that justice is connected to reality.   But it is also interesting to me that many that claim to be religious and believe in an afterlife; believe that they will not be held to any accountability because they believe in G-d.
Sadly most believe justice is only something that applies to others - especially others that they do not love all that much.
As for election fraud - the one thing Trump has done is make the world aware that it happens in the USA.  But even worse there is no force within our government to keep election fraud from happening.  And like so many things concerning politics and law - the risk of punishment in politics is out of balance with the rewards for breaking the laws - and I personally doubt it is going to change until both parties want it changed because citizens demand it be changed.  Most citizens still believe there is not enough fraud to change an election.  My question is - why would anyone do it - if it does not work?  No one takes risks without believing and expecting it will work.
 
The Traveler