It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I warned trump haters; trump now may take action against social media companies

page: 7
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Love it!

It only took you a year to achieve your mental contortion to create a justification for the right wing's wish to become Russia and encourage the control of internet and media.

Yes, it is only fair that the government exert force on Media and the Internet to make sure things stay "fair".

And just in case you honestly can't tell the difference.

It is the players, not the game

Russia conducting a Propaganda Campaign costing millions, employing hundreds of people, stealing American Identitites and SS #'s to conduct banking to fund it?

VS.

The Platforms they exploited.

You are advocating government seize control of the platforms.

Dems and GOP and Independents (Anyone that gives a crap about the USA, free elections and sovereignty) don't advocate government control of internet or media platforms like you do, they advocate consequences for anyone that uses those platforms for illicit and illegal purposes.

Just amazing.

Trumpets are going full-3rd world tyrant.




edit on 29-8-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

As usual, your complaints about republicans being tyrants we suspiciously absent when the democrats were calling in tech execs and demanding they censor fake news, which they kindly upped their censorship of conservatives in response.

And show me where I have suggested government seizure of media platforms?

I have said the whole way through this thread that it is a complicated issue, and there may need to be some regulation, but I am not sure.

But somehow that makes me cheering for a third world tyrant.

But ye, we know those evil russian trolls exploited and hurt the elections by posting ads on facebook.

But the people who run these companies working with Democrats to push their agenda and censor conservatives is no problem at all.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

I have no doubt that the Trump WH will eventually try to limit dissension and free speech. That's exactly what the
"fake news" mantra is all about. Control! No criticism.

Who gets to decide what is fake news. The government...what could possibly go wrong.



If you think this is bad, wait until trump starts wiretapping opponents.

What will the trump haters be able to say; they literally cheered this on when it happened to trump.



When was Trump wire-tapped? And when did the report come showing that Hillary, Bernie or an opponent was responsible?



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

I have no doubt that the Trump WH will eventually try to limit dissension and free speech. That's exactly what the
"fake news" mantra is all about. Control! No criticism.

Who gets to decide what is fake news. The government...what could possibly go wrong.



If you think this is bad, wait until trump starts wiretapping opponents.

What will the trump haters be able to say; they literally cheered this on when it happened to trump.



When was Trump wire-tapped? And when did the report come showing that Hillary, Bernie or an opponent was responsible?


People that were on trump team were wiretapped, but you knew this.

Obama agencies, who were cheering for hillary, were responsible, but you knew this.

You will be one of the ones screaming the loudest if trump would start wiretapping people in his opponents campaign.

And yet you constantly defend this being done to trump.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I could be way off, as I do not have as much knowledge of how the system works as I should have.

Rather than regulating "free speech" or forcing media platforms to allow access, couldn't the FEC or a similar organization determine that actions against one candidate would be seen as "contributions in kind" to their opponent?

While this may not stop the actions taken by the social media giants, it could limit the warchests of the candidates for other things. Is facebook, twitter, google enough to deplete other avenues?

With potentially billions of viewers, I can see the monetary value of this being exceedingly high. That or the same companies would have to explain why their advertising isn't really worth very much.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

As usual, your complaints about republicans being tyrants we suspiciously absent when the democrats were calling in tech execs and demanding they censor fake news, which they kindly upped their censorship of conservatives in response.




A) They "upped their censorship" of Russians posing as Americans, people operating fake profiles and "upped their censorship" of egregious trolls that harassed parents of murdered children. As a private company that is their prerogative.

I appreciate your honesty though in equating those groups to "conservatives" though I might disagree with that rather broad brush of ugly.

B) Congress can have hearings with private CEOs and complain anytime they like. They have been doing it for a century now.

You are advocating Government control of media. Congress and the rest of us that aren't aroused by dictators advocate that private companies self-police.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus


Would you like the FEC to regulate the threads against (or for) presidential candidates on ATS?



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

I have no doubt that the Trump WH will eventually try to limit dissension and free speech. That's exactly what the
"fake news" mantra is all about. Control! No criticism.

Who gets to decide what is fake news. The government...what could possibly go wrong.



If you think this is bad, wait until trump starts wiretapping opponents.

What will the trump haters be able to say; they literally cheered this on when it happened to trump.



When was Trump wire-tapped? And when did the report come showing that Hillary, Bernie or an opponent was responsible?


People that were on trump team were wiretapped, but you knew this.


Who?



Obama agencies, who were cheering for hillary, were responsible, but you knew this.


The FBI was cheering for Hillary? Strange, it didn't appear that way when they lingered in the spotlight during most of the election talking about the ongoing investigation. It certainly didn't appear that way when the Director of the FBI held an unprecedented news conference just a couple weeks before the election to let the voters know they had re-opened the investigation.

Damn! If THAT is "Obama Agencies" cheering for Hillary they have a really mean way of showing it.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

As usual, your complaints about republicans being tyrants we suspiciously absent when the democrats were calling in tech execs and demanding they censor fake news, which they kindly upped their censorship of conservatives in response.




A) They "upped their censorship" of Russians posing as Americans, people operating fake profiles and "upped their censorship" of egregious trolls that harassed parents of murdered children. As a private company that is their prerogative.

I appreciate your honesty though in equating those groups to "conservatives" though I might disagree with that rather broad brush of ugly.

B) Congress can have hearings with private CEOs and complain anytime they like. They have been doing it for a century now.

You are advocating Government control of media. Congress and the rest of us that aren't aroused by dictators advocate that private companies self-police.


They didnt just shay to remove russians, democrats were calling for the removal of "fake news" which they considered conservative sources, had meetings with the tech leaders, who have happily obliged and upped their censorship of conservative and non establishment left leaning people.

Your dishonest claim that I am liking conservatives to russians is just more nonsense from you.

And you can feign you arent for government control all you want, but I know the truth is that you like the current system because it censors conservatives.

If trump met with facebook tomorrow and they kicked of a bunch of democrat groups like CNN, you would be screaming how something needed to be done about that.

But you have no problem when democrats are working with tech companies to censor conservatoves.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

If you dont know the people thate were on trump team that were wiretapped, then you honestly should be ashamed at the amount of posts you have had defedning the FBIs actions, because you dont even know the base level of info of what happened.

Again, you are just pretending to be ignorant. I dont know why; to prove that you should not be taken seriously?

Carter page was on trumps team, he was wiretapped, all of his communications from when he was a member of trumps team were allowed to be collected.

And again, it has been gobne over and over again how comey reopened the hillary case for two reasons.

One, he thought hillary was going to win and wanted to ensure there wasnt a scandal about the weiner emails not being discussed when the fbi found out about them that would hurt her presidency.

Two, there hand was forced, because strzok (you know the fni guy in charge of both investigations that texts show he hated trump and wanted hillary to win) tried to help hillary by burying these emails for over a month, and so an fbi agent on new york went over strzoks head to oversight, who forced Comey and strzok to ackonwlegde to congress there existence because oversight demanded it.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

An individual post should have little merit in the discussion.

If a social media organization allows a platform to one side and not another (a platform reaching 10-100 million nationally), then it should be seen as aiding a campaign.

If a site manipulates posts to sway public opinion for one candidate and/or against another, then it should be seen as making a direct contribution to that campaign.


+Just to clarify - what is the general consensus this week? Are corporations people?



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus


Our freedom of speech becomes vulnerable when we allow government to dictate and determine what is or isn't a "contribution".


Are corporations, (Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc) biased?


Yes. But imagine if Hillary was president and she wanted to govern free speech on the internet.


Nauseating thought, isn't it.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


She didn't win and free speech is already being censored.

Nauseating thought indeed.

When one side controls the volume, freedom of speech can become irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: subfab

Only scary if mush-minded drones believe everything they read on social media and see on TV. Heck, the Russians could flood Facebook and Twitter with dog and cat videos and invade America while these dolts are stuck watching the vids.
edit on 29-8-2018 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
We do not need more regulation.

We need better discrimination laws.

Based on the availability of services.

Since google has no equal rival they should not be able to sensor anyone.

I feel it is only discrimination if a person has no other reasonable options.

If a company has a monopoly then they should not have censorship power.

If a mom and pop store refuses service to someone and that person can get services somewhere else within reason then there is no discrimination.

That would mean youtube could not ban anyone unless they actually brake a law.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 200Plus


Our freedom of speech becomes vulnerable when we allow government to dictate and determine what is or isn't a "contribution".


Are corporations, (Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc) biased?


Yes. But imagine if Hillary was president and she wanted to govern free speech on the internet.


Nauseating thought, isn't it.



But again, you are ignoring that democratic politicians have already been in discussioons with these sites causingbthem to censor conservatives. So in a way, we already have what we would have had under hillary.

And I am still on the fence about what to do.

But having the government say these places cant censor seems to be different than saying the government says you have to say x or y.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

If you dont know the people thate were on trump team that were wiretapped, then you honestly should be ashamed at the amount of posts you have had defedning the FBIs actions


Should be easy. List them please.



Carter page was on trumps team, he was wiretapped, all of his communications from when he was a member of trumps team were allowed to be collected.


Nope. Not while he was on team trump.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Did I say while he was on trumps team?

I said "people thate were on trump team that were wiretapped"

And I also showed how that allowed them to get access to all of his communications from when he was on trumps team.

In addition, FBI spy halper was infiltrating trumps team with Page and current member papadopolous.

But you were coold with this, so when trump uses oppo research he paid for as an excuse to do this to his opponents, you will no doubt cheer this on as a good move to ensure the safety of the country.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: subfab

Only scary if mush-minded drones believe everything they read on social media and see on TV. Heck, the Russians could flood Facebook and Twitter with dog and cat videos and invade America while these dolts are stuck watching the vids.


i think this is the case in today's world.
it seems as though most people just follow the group without questioning whether or not what they follow is correct.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It starts with government saying you can't censor.

But once we cede our right to government to determine what is applicable to censorship, we give up our own right to self determine.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join