How jackholes filibusterer the internet and silence others

I believe that this is both irrelevant and false.

Tech companies (like any other companies) tend to mimic the politics of the people they serve. I think google is a little left of center. I think facebook is actually a little to the right (in a libertarian sort of way).

When any tech company censors an unpopular group, such as the alt-right... most Americans approve. That is why the do it.

You're not being silenced, you're being voted down.

I have no clue why you got banned but I'm pretty sure it was well deserved. You whine and cajole and throw hissy fits and expect to be taken seriously. Well, you're just out of luck with that.

I agree with this.

When someone is downvoted by dozens of multiple sock accounts (usually oralloy or coldjoint, and usually the operator of the bot accounts is bobsal) so much that it collapses their post, that is silencing.



Something I said in another thread applies to this.

FreedomEyeLove said:

Voting people down silences them.

I may be a mean SOB, but I'm one of the good guys. There is no shame in siding with me.

False. They try to (mostly successfully unfortunately) sow seeds of how reality OUGHT to be (according to thier leftist ideals) in the minds of users. This is a well known Marxist tactic. There was a former KGB agent who was interviewed in the 1980's during the cold war. I can't remember his name. Anyway it's a very famous and widely shared video. So this guy says that instead of spending lots of money on weapons during the cold war, Russia spent most of their budget on PSYOPs and propaganda.

When you have a country like the U.S. where people are free to do as they please, unscrupulous actors will take advantage of this. Marxists will use this freedom to plant the seeds of propaganda anywhere and everywhere they can. When children grow up only ever having known what Google's version of history and reality is, they never know any better or know that something else used to exist.

Google as a company has more power and money than any other company that's ever existed. They have more money and power than most countries do, maybe even more than the U.S. (power at least).

Max, have you ever read '1984' by George Orwell? It was also made into a very good film.

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."



Max... I'm trying hard to resist the urge to make fun of you here. I'm laughing right now. These statements you've made in no way reflect reality.

In some circumstances yes. In some circumstances no.

I politically disagree with people who falsely accuse Jews (or Israel) of imaginary atrocities.



I am not exaggerating or twisting anything.



No, but I don't keep track of Israel's critics.

I don't see any problem.



I already explained how they are different.

Is there something insufficient about my earlier answer?

Facebook, the "center right/libertarian" tech company according to you:

Facebook removes Trump campaign ad about ‘far-left groups,’ says it shows ‘hate group’s symbol’

Facebook on Thursday removed an ad run by President Trump’s re-election campaign for violating the social media platform’s policy on hate speech, but the Trump campaign pushed back hard by arguing they were showing a "symbol used by Antifa" to push back against far-left groups.

The ad in question featured the Trump campaign denouncing what it called “Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups” and features a red upside-down triangle with a black border. A red upside-down triangle was used by the Nazis in their concentration camps to signify political prisoners such as socialists, communists and anarchists.

“We removed these posts and ads for violating our policy against organized hate,” a Facebook company spokesperson said in a statement sent to Fox News. “Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group's symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol.”

The Trump campaign, though, responded that the upside-down red triangle is a symbol used by Antifa and called out Facebook for including one as an emoji in its messenger.

“The inverted red triangle is a symbol used by Antifa, so it was included in an ad about Antifa," Tim Murtaugh, the campaign's communications director, told Fox News. "We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use, which looks exactly the same, so it’s curious that they would target only this ad."

The campaign also took to Twitter to argue it's "symbol widely used by Antifa."

It's also a symbol widely used by Antifa. It was used in an ad about Antifa.

It is not in the ADL's Hate Symbols Database.

He added: "The image is also not included in the Anti-Defamation League’s database of symbols of hate. But it is ironic that it took a Trump ad to force the media to implicitly concede that Antifa is a hate group.”

While Antifa operates in a semi-autonomous fashion, most imagery associated with the group does not feature an upside-down red triangle. Instead, the symbols most commonly associated with the group are a circle with red and black flags in it or a circle with three arrows pointing down and to the left.

The ad, which was posted by Team Trump’s Facebook group as well as on Trump’s and Vice President Mike Pence’s pages, stated that “Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups” are “DESTROYING out cities and rioting – it’s absolute madness.”

“It’s important that EVERY American comes together at a time like this to send a united message that we will not stand for their radical actions any longer.”

Trump and his allies have blamed much of the recent protests – and the rioting and looting that accompanied some of them – on anarchists and groups like Antifa, the anti-fascist protest movement that militantly opposes fascism and far-right ideologies. Though it's not known to what extent Antifa has been involved in the recent unrest, Trump has used the movement to rally his base of support ahead of November’s presidential election and justify the use of strong-arm tactics to suppress protests in Washington.

Facebook’s actions against the Trump campaign’s ad occurred just one day after the Justice Department sent lawmakers on Capitol Hill a proposal to pass legislation that would hold Facebook, Twitter and other tech behemoths accountable for what is posted on their platforms – a move that if passed would roll back protections Silicon Valley has had for decades.

The Justice Department’s proposals, unveiled Wednesday afternoon, want online platforms to better police their sites for illicit and harmful material, and to take a more objective approach in deciding what content they deem objectionable and decide to take down. The DOJ, in a news release, said it was calling for lawmakers to "update the outdated immunity for online platforms" under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Trump's executive order targets political bias at Twitter and FacebookVideo
The proposal comes as Trump and many conservative lawmakers in Congress have been sharply critical of the alleged bias by tech companies against right-wing material on their platforms.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation Wednesday to give Americans the ability to sue major tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter if they engage in selective censorship of political speech.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, cosponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., would stop such companies from receiving immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith.

Zuckerberg: Facebook must take action on policy violations by anyone, including officials and presidentVideo
Trump also signed an executive order this month that interprets Section 230 as not providing statutory liability protections for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct -- though DOJ officials say the department has been working on the legislative recommendations for months and they are not a direct result of Trump’s order.

"My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield," the president said at the time.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/facebook-removes-trump-campaign-ad-about-far-left-groups-says-it-shows-hate-groups-symbol

While there's clearly no point in trying to have a logical discussion with you...



If you feel that way, then it goes back to my question I asked you before (which you did not answer, and still haven't answered, but whatever, have it your way).



Clearly you don't like people disagreeing with you as I said before, so I believe you on that point if nothing else.



I'm not a "leftist" to begin with, and you have no idea what I like or don't like unless I say/write it. Are you saying you can read minds?

I think maxdancona provided a good answer to the second part of your rant in saying this:



...said in another way; they are just reflecting popular public opinion.



That we can agree on, so yes, finally something you've said worth listening to.



I want no such thing... when and how was "I trying to silence others" ? I'm not a moderator here, nor am I this site's owner, so how would I even do that, even if I did want to ?



While I would say "I feel much sorrier for you"; I think you need psychological help personally.



While I pity some people (such as yourself), I don't "hate" very sad and clearly disturbed individuals such as yourself. So you're wrong again, like most of what you've said in the rest of your post(s) above.

Furthermore, I also gave a real example of leaving another forum (which I was NOT banned from) because of the way it was being moderated (among other reasons) myself, including people I disagreed with being targeted unfairly in regards to moderation of that forum. But you seemed to have completely ignored that part of my post. I asked you a honest question, but since you don't want to provide a proper answer, then I can only assume that you just don't like people disagreeing with you and the powers that be here were right in banning you. Like I said before, you would want to be thankful you weren't a member of the forum I left. Because like I also said before, you almost certainly would have been banned for life from it if you posted there like you do here.

And while I don't expect any proper answer from you; if the powers that be here were indeed trying to "silence" you, then how come they didn't ban you for life ? That's what I would have done if I were them and I was trying to "silence you"... doesn't quite add up, does it?

Because you have no logic. You are without logic.



I feel very sorry for you that you're so upset that you feel you need to call names and hurl insults. This is a very girly thing to do. Does your momma know that you have these kinds of tantrums?



And so once again we come back to how you want to silence others. This is a tactic used by people who don't want attention drawn to their bullshit and hypocrisy.

Speaking of name calling and tantrums...



Anywho, back on topic...

You had a temporary suspension. If it had been an actual and true, legitimate banning, you'd still not be here. (unless you created a new screen name)

Dwelling on the past, shall only lead you back down the oft trodden path to your destruction.

An yet Bobsal would continue to be allowed to operate 748 sock accounts with impunity.

Is that the best you can do? How very childish (and very unsurprisingly from the likes of you)...



I don't feel sorry for you one little bit, I feel pity for you if anything...

Does your mommy know you're sitting in her basement hurling insults at anyone who dares to disagree with you? I think she needs to give you a good smack on the ass and suspend your internet privileges.



...and as predicted, you not only don't answer any questions asked, you very conveniently only include parts of what I said to misrepresent what I said.

So here's the rest of what I said above (assuming you can read of course):



Notice the parts highlighted in bold font that you very conveniently omitted from your quote above?

Not very smart on your part, now is it?