Apparently Bart Hanson hates free speech (Parler and Twitter censorship issue)

[duped_samaritan]

Who is denying Parler to buy their own servers and set up shop?

Then don't tell private companies that under penalty of law they have to bake a cake for a wedding.

Wait you must have been on the bakeries side in that case, right?

[Dan Druff]

Someone tried that. It was called "Parler". You saw what happened to them.

Who is denying Parler to buy their own servers and set up shop?

It's a lot more costly and burdensome.

Do you think it's a good precedent to only allow server space to be sold to political websites you agree with?

[adamantium]

Who is denying Parler to buy their own servers and set up shop?

It's a lot more costly and burdensome.

Do you think it's a good precedent to only allow server space to be sold to political websites you agree with?

Depends if you are into lies, civil war and violence or not

[Dan Druff]

It's a lot more costly and burdensome.

Do you think it's a good precedent to only allow server space to be sold to political websites you agree with?

Depends if you are into lies, civil war and violence or not

I am into freedom of speech and not suppressing the other side's opinions. There's no such thing as censorship of "only the dangerous stuff", because it's so subjective.

Censorship is a tool of fascist regimes. Opposition is silenced after their views are portrayed as "dangerous", "dishonest", or "misleading". The greatest enemy of fascism and corruption is free and open speech. Anything which starts to veer into speech suppression becomes dangerous for civilized society, even if this suppression isn't occurring at the government level.

I will never support any form of speech suppression, and I will especially never support any form of speech suppression against major sitting politicians. The latter is absolutely absurd. This applies to both the left and right. Have you ever seen me advocate suppression of left wing material, even Antifa?

[adamantium]

Depends if you are into lies, civil war and violence or not

I am into freedom of speech and not suppressing the other side's opinions. There's no such thing as censorship of "only the dangerous stuff", because it's so subjective.

Censorship is a tool of fascist regimes. Opposition is silenced after their views are portrayed as "dangerous", "dishonest", or "misleading". The greatest enemy of fascism and corruption is free and open speech. Anything which starts to veer into speech suppression becomes dangerous for civilized society, even if this suppression isn't occurring at the government level.

I will never support any form of speech suppression, and I will especially never support any form of speech suppression against major sitting politicians. The latter is absolutely absurd. This applies to both the left and right. Have you ever seen me advocate suppression of left wing material, even Antifa?

If major politicians are spreading proven lies on private owned public squares causing death and destruction earns them 20 to life Im onboard

[Dan Druff]

I had a bizarre Facebook conversation with a guy today, regarding NY Times bias, which he insisted didn't exist.

Him: You have to understand, reality is actually center-left, so that's not necessarily a bias like you think it is.

Me: I am not talking about which party "reality" favors. I just want the facts. I want the news to report the facts, whether they favor the left or right. Anything else is a bias. The NY Times is left-biased because they omit certain information which makes Democrats look bad, and they press hard on any story or details which make Republicans look bad.

Him: It's not a bias if it's the truth. The truth just happens to favor the left more.

Me: That's not what I'm arguing. Again, whichever side the facts favor has nothing to do with bias. I don't think the Times is biased because the "facts" they report favor the left. I say they are biased because they knowingly skew their reporting to only cover facts they want to reveal, with a political motivation in choosing them. If you omit facts which make a party look bad, and you're doing it out of the desire to make your own side look good, you're showing a bias.

Him: You just can't handle that reporting which makes your side look bad is more prevalent because your side frequently deserves it.

Me: ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME??? I'm talking about when they OMIT or EXAGGERATE facts, in order to push the narrative a certain way. I'm not talking about whether they are covering something which makes Republicans look bad. Why are you not getting this? Do you not understand what a bias is? Even if "reality is center-left" as you say, a left bias can still exist in reporting.

Him: I have no problem with what you perceive to be a bias, because you are just fooling yourself as to how right you think your side is. There is no actual NY Times bias.

[mickeycrimm]

It's a lot more costly and burdensome.

Do you think it's a good precedent to only allow server space to be sold to political websites you agree with?

Depends if you are into lies, civil war and violence or not

Like the current civil war in Seattle and Portland?

[mickeycrimm]

I caught a soundbite of a Sarah Huckabee Sanders campaign ad for Governor of Arkansas. One of the issues she brought up, FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I hadn't thought about it but you can look for this issue to be big in the midterms. Lefties pushed it so now they get it as a big issue against them.

[mickeycrimm]

If major politicians are spreading proven lies on private owned public squares causing death and destruction earns them 20 to life Im onboard

The problem is lefties like you, when it is politically advantageous to you, will decide that "peacefully and patriotically protest" is inciting a riot. Since you blatantly make false interpretations like that you have no business telling us what the words of others mean.

[Dan Druff]

Not biased at all, guys.

Somehow I must have missed the latimesmikepence Instagram account over the past 4 years.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1354436887482494977

[mickeycrimm]

Not biased at all, guys.

Somehow I must have missed the latimesmikepence Instagram account over the past 4 years.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1354436887482494977

They forgot to mention Kamala is also a descendent of slaveholders.

[mickeycrimm]

The European Union is now urging the U.S. to crackdown on big tech censorship. They think Twitter banning Trump is a dangerous precedent.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...y6pY5hYmMqWcQ8

[BCR]

The European Union is now urging the U.S. to crackdown on big tech censorship. They think Twitter banning Trump is a dangerous precedent.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...y6pY5hYmMqWcQ8

They think it’s a dangerous precedent without legal framework. They aren’t urging the US to crackdown on censorship. They’re urging us to crackdown on widespread disinformation and have a rule book, and ban a Trump under the framework of a legal rulebook and not make decisions in a capricious manner. They don’t like the overreach of big tech, but the entirety of right wing thought would end up being illegal if we had some common legal rulebook with the EU. It’s an anti-big tech movement. Not a pro-Trump movement. No one thinks having tens of millions of citizens living in a delusional alternate reality is a healthy thing.

[mickeycrimm]

It's a lot more costly and burdensome.

Do you think it's a good precedent to only allow server space to be sold to political websites you agree with?

Depends if you are into lies, civil war and violence or not

The Russia Hoax. Riots in the big cities. Who did you say was into lying and violence?

[mickeycrimm]

The European Union is now urging the U.S. to crackdown on big tech censorship. They think Twitter banning Trump is a dangerous precedent.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...y6pY5hYmMqWcQ8

They think it’s a dangerous precedent without legal framework. They aren’t urging the US to crackdown on censorship. They’re urging us to crackdown on widespread disinformation and have a rule book, and ban a Trump under the framework of a legal rulebook and not make decisions in a capricious manner. They don’t like the overreach of big tech, but the entirety of right wing thought would end up being illegal if we had some common legal rulebook with the EU. It’s an anti-big tech movement. Not a pro-Trump movement. No one thinks having tens of millions of citizens living in a delusional alternate reality is a healthy thing.

Hungary and Poland are going to fine the hell out of Facebook and Twitter for anything that stifles freedom of speech. Those two countries suffered decades of oppression. You know that old saying by Kasparov "Those who have never lived under socialism adore it while those who have lived under it hate it." Poland and Hungary aren't going to allow big tech to do the same thing to them that the Soviets did. That's what you dumb ass lefties don't get. But you are so right on the "delusional alternate reality" thing. That's why we have to stamp lying, corrupt, delusional socialists.

Ironic, isn't it? The two countries that used to be Eastern Bloc are the most opposed to big tech censorship. It should be a huge message to you American lefties. Those with the experience of living under it know it's a bad thing. But, yeah, I know. You American lefties think you know how to do socialism right. Better than its ever been done before. Yeah, you betcha!! Its a pipedream, dude.

[mickeycrimm]

Florida is going to pass laws holding big tech accountable for censorship. They are going to impose heavy fines:

[mickeycrimm]

POLAND MAKES HISTORIC MOVE TO BLOCK SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP

The Poles are cracking the whip on big tech. They are going to take Free Speech totally out of the hands of anonymous jackoffs and regulate social media to insure, under penalty of heavy fines, that true Free Speech is upheld.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...DnRxGkFoXHhjA2

[garrett]

Florida is going to pass laws holding big tech accountable for censorship. They are going to impose heavy fines:

O.K so, maybe you actually are a bit more unaware of what is actually happening currently...

When I first may have realized, so im going to enlighten you on something very big happening right now from a 'Business' standpoint in Florida. Governor DeSantis as well as many others are fully aware, that at the moment their is a very real, and possible shift for some say Wall St. oriented business, to come down here and in the near future too, like now....

Ill link a couple articles which are interesting and will paint to you the general belief that some Wall St. oriented businesses are coming to South Florida. And for other reasons im sure too. Like Florida is a, No State Income Tax State. That would be very beneficial to a very big Multi-Billion dollar conglomerate, or Financial type of company existing and they are knowingly and have historically been skinned alive while being based in New York City and on Wall St.

So this move is real and Goldman Sachs is moving there 'Asset Manager' Team here already or now, so it's already started. And Governor DeSantis and everyone at the State level understand this, and that shift has now begun. This is actually, just beginning to put into place the necessary future boundaries. For the real Possibility that South Florida here, becomes the new '22nd Century Wall St. Anything is possible, and for many reason it just seems to actually make perfect sense too.

"Goldman Sachs plans move to South Florida"
https://therealdeal.com/national/202...south-florida/

It's being done for a reason specifically ;-)...