Democrats Now Claim The Surviving of Our Democracy Relies on Banning More Sites

a reply to: soberbacchus

Allow Leftist Jimmy Dore (A Man who once literally spat on Alex Jones face) to explain what i meant with my post. Since obviously all you are trying to do with your post is to demonize.



Even Leftist Jimmy understand that if you silence one voice, you are in fact a dictator. If they can silence Alex Jones they can do it to anyone they don't like.

And Jimmy is smart enough to recognize this despite his hate towards Alex.

Nice try trying to make this a "conservative" thing when this in fact impacts every human being on the planet. And those who support this dictatorship/ censorship is actually the enemy of mankind.

Just noting, I am neither left nor right. My point of view comes from the center.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

It's a hemp tiger actually. A tiger so meaningless everyone in armed forces, military and representative government positions must swear loyalty to it.

This highlights the current vacuum for a truly free speech promoting social media service.

Some young entrepreneur should create one, sans restrictive oppressive anti-free speech attitudes.

You know you're winning when the opposition tries to outright silence you. I think they call that "not having any good points to refute an argument with"

Not withstanding the fact that Jones is a bit of a nut job at times, his right to free speech/expression/press is just as unalienable as our own

originally posted by: JBurns
This highlights the current vacuum for a truly free speech promoting social media service.

Some young entrepreneur should create one, sans restrictive oppressive anti-free speech attitudes.

You know you're winning when the opposition tries to outright silence you. I think they call that "not having any good points to refute an argument with"

Not withstanding the fact that Jones is a bit of a nut job at times, his right to free speech/expression/press is just as unalienable as our own

Bad idea for business.
No one would use a social media platform, yet alone post on it, where every asshat of a troll could post whatever crap they wish.
Who the f would want to paddle through crap for hours and hours to find content of interest?!
IMDB shut their message boards down because it became a cess pool of trolls. Imdb was one of the few popular main stream sites that almost didn't moderate the user content. Look where it got them to.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

There are certainly a variety of decent pro/con arguments, but I would love such a service. One caveat, of course, is that users would be able to block other users they feel are trolling or saturating the medium with garbage info

I never used FaceBook or Twitter or any of those, but I would be interested in patronizing/supporting a pro-free speech platform (even financially, through an accredited crowd funding platform)

I think the current monopoly these tech giants hold should imbue additional responsibilities, including never limiting the free speech or expression of others merely because they disagree with the content/message. They should either refute the message with a valid argument, or show their true weak colors (because censorship never conveys the image of strength or confidence)

The real solution I believe is properly applying anti-trust statutes to the tech giants and breaking up their monopolies to destroy the stranglehold they have on Americans' free speech rights on-line. Because they've shown their nefarious intent time and time again (by censoring political views/speech merely because they disagree - very, very petty), they should not be the arbiters of Internet free speech. Of course I'd also support pulling the plug on Google, FaceBook, Twitter, etc 100% and shutting them down permanently.

I would also like to see some of their employees (like those captured on sting videos) investigated/prosecuted for any number of potential federal law violations. Their targeting of conservative viewpoints, specifically, may have had consequences not yet entirely known. Due to the Inter-state nature of the Internet, it is impossible to tell off hand whether any state or federal laws were violated by these actions (including potential impact on past/future elections). If any violations whatsoever are found, I support prosecuting those individuals to the maximum extent allowed by law.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

There are certainly a variety of decent pro/con arguments, but I would love such a service. One caveat, of course, is that users would be able to block other users they feel are trolling or saturating the medium with garbage info

I never used FaceBook or Twitter or any of those, but I would be interested in patronizing/supporting a pro-free speech platform (even financially, through an accredited crowd funding platform)

Block them and they will create another account.
Pay for posting? That could work but who would pay for something that you can do for free?! Would it be free speech if you had to pay to exercise it?!
The biggest challenge with the internet, In my humble opinion, is that everyone can post whatever crap anonymously without any consequences. Would you post what you are posting now if your real name appeared instead of your nickname?

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

You are right, but those are my real initials/last name That said what you wrote makes sense

I guess it isn't so much that I disagree with what you wrote (I don't, makes sense to me) but how do you go about ensuring "real" people aren't kicked off the service (or blocked all together) while the bots/trolls/etc are?

It seems that having humans perform that task leaves too much room open for biases. On the other hand, a system where technology flags certain topics of concern (prevents humans from targeting anyone) in order to pass the material along to real humans (a working group, with checks and balances to prevent intentional biases) could work out

Just some ideas any how

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

My folks actually named me after the William J. Burns International Detective Agency, the same W. J Burns who also was a former FBI director

But you are right, if your name is plastered on every Internet posting people would be less inclined to write idiotic and insulting nonsense


(and on an unrelated note, I would like to quote the following. F Y I, this is why I avoid the conspiracy baiting RE: Russia)

Historically, one of the most incriminating indictments of the labor spy business may have been the testimony of Albert Balanow (some sources list the name as Ballin or Blanow) during an investigation of the detective agencies' roles during the Red Scare. Albert Balanow had worked with both the Burns Detective Agency and the Thiel Detective Agency. Balanow testified that the Red Scare was all about shaking down businessmen for protection money. "If there is no conspiracy, you've got to make a conspiracy in order to hold your job.

The lessons from the early 20th century have not been lost on me. I try to remind others of the serious implications conspiracy baiting can have. And a big part of that is certainly fake - news (aka disinformation). You are right that it is something to address, not to shy away from

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: highvein

What do you expect from the party of "My right to not be offended is greater than your 1'st Amendment right, unless you get offended from being stalked and harassed while eating out, then my 1'st Amendment right is greater than your right to be offended." Or something like that. The Democratic party holds nothing for anyone anymore. The far left have taken it over and that is why a lot of us have left it. The Republican party isn't much better though.

WTF are you even talking about? Try coming out to a union construction site and spew that crap.

Exactly, I remember clearly those SEIU thugs going to Tea party rallies and randomly beating up people there.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's All in their Plans , the Destruction of Our Democratic Republic . Over Time , they Sow the Seeds of Discontent in order to Subvert Our Very way of Life . They are the True Enemies of the State who Must be reigned in and Controlled before it is to Late...........Freedom Loving Americans , Take Back your Country !

a reply to: sooth

We don't have a democracy and tribalism won't sink the republic. It's specifically built to withstand tribalism.

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: xuenchen

Lets shut the internet down and get rid of cell phones and I will be fine with it..

People might actually interact with each other. Scary.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: sooth

We don't have a democracy and tribalism won't sink the republic. It's specifically built to withstand tribalism.

That is why they want to assault the borders.

Why Hillary wanted like over 5 times as many so-called refugees per year. Why they basically call for open borders. Like an invasion flood the country with their voters, and then try and put tons of liberal judges, revisionist judges on the supreme court, and gain enough power to destroy the nation.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: AutisticEvo

Krauts? I'll give you a hint, Murican: guilt by association.

You can whine about T&C violations with sites vanishing from Fckbook, Twatter or Gööble all day long. But that doesn't change that fact, that you could still fetch your daily fix of Brainforce BS on infowars.com.

Which means, that most of you outragers don't even know what censorship means. BTW, how is your "Potect & Serve" act working out so far?

You went waaay off base with what I stated and the intention involved.

No one is complaining about being busted with T&c .

You are off your mark, and I would be kind as to warning you that opinionated remarks that have no foundation that can be cited, followed by insinuations based off blind assumption only serve to show your lack of experience in debating intellectually

Next time you want to attack someones viewpoint or statement you might try quoting what specifically gave you this impression.

It allows for better communication.
Your welcome for the advice.

Isn't it funny how we always end up back here at "ban everything or we're DOOMED!"?

a reply to: AutisticEvo

Try another line of inquiry and unplug the wood? This is the pit, the place where my points keep sailing above the crowd of top secret MAGA-hats.

Tell me, what was it that Gööble threw out in your "Protect and Serve Act" search? Any takers?

Funny how the Democrats always want to "solve" things by banning something or otherwise dampening individual freedom. From the Democrats in the 60's who opposed the Civil Rights Act to their attempts to ban free speech, firearms, borders, immigration enforcement and more, they have positioned themselves against the cause of freedom at every turn

originally posted by: JBurns
Funny how the Democrats always want to "solve" things by banning something or otherwise dampening individual freedom. From the Democrats in the 60's who opposed the Civil Rights Act to their attempts to ban free speech, firearms, borders, immigration enforcement and more, they have positioned themselves against the cause of freedom at every turn

They're famous for ....

People keep saying Infowarts is libelous and slanderous.
That's what lawsuits are for.
When people get called out for being pedophiles don't wonder why they don't sue.
This all started once the pizzagate and elite pedophile rings started making the rounds.
Too close to the truth?
Shut 'em down.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

There are certainly a variety of decent pro/con arguments, but I would love such a service. One caveat, of course, is that users would be able to block other users they feel are trolling or saturating the medium with garbage info

I never used FaceBook or Twitter or any of those, but I would be interested in patronizing/supporting a pro-free speech platform (even financially, through an accredited crowd funding platform)

Block them and they will create another account.
Pay for posting? That could work but who would pay for something that you can do for free?! Would it be free speech if you had to pay to exercise it?!
The biggest challenge with the internet, In my humble opinion, is that everyone can post whatever crap anonymously without any consequences. Would you post what you are posting now if your real name appeared instead of your nickname?

I don't know. Would you?

Go and take a look at what you post. Think about how it appears from the points of view of others. If one person could conceivably consider it hate speech or harassing for any reason, then they could track you down, dox you, and report you to where you work and attempt to ruin your life over it.

That's the environment we live in.

There is no more simple disagreement. If I hate hearing something, then you made hate speech.