Thought Police are now at the US Govt

[fskimospy]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

It's very strange that you look at a clear case of companies exercising their constitutional right to free speech and decided that the FREE SPEECH is the thought police, lol.

Free speech is good - you should not argue against it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

Tell me you don't understand how free speech works without telling me you don't understand how free speech works

 

[UNCjigga]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

That you would even try to equate direct actions by an Administration to limit Constitutional rights with actions taken by private companies to police their own digital media platforms (without anything resembling the consequences these immigrants face) just reinforces the fact you are not making a serious argument.

“but Zuck said Biden forced him to do it!” lol get fucking real.

 

[pmv]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

Multiple replies have already said it, so not sure I have much to add, but it's absurd that you try to equate a private platform-owner setting rules about the use of that platform (and, at most, limiting what they can say on that platform) with a government _deporting people_ (even rounding them up and sending them to camps) for saying the "wrong" things.

And "blaming" the Benghazi attack on a viral video? What point are you trying to make there? Isn't "blaming" a form of speech? I can't work out if you are saying it should or shouldn't have been allowed to "blame" like that.

 

[nakedfrog]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

Yeah, being kicked off Facebook is the same as being deported to El Salvador without due process... you utter fucking dunce.

 

[fskimospy]

Multiple replies have already said it, so not sure I have much to add, but it's absurd that you try to equate a private platform-owner setting rules about the use of that platform (and, at most, limiting what they can say on that platform) with a government _deporting people_ (even rounding them up and sending them to camps) for saying the "wrong" things.

And "blaming" the Benghazi attack on a viral video? What point are you trying to make there? Isn't "blaming" a form of speech? I can't work out if you are saying it should or shouldn't have been allowed to "blame" like that.

I think it is a pretty widely held opinion among conservatives that to be in support of free speech private citizens must broadcast conservative speech at their own expense.

This is of course utterly insane but it doesn't change the fact that lots of right wingers believe it.

 

[Brainonska511]

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

You have no constitutional right to post on a private social media platform. The company that runs it can enforce their own rules.

 

[Amused]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

Oh FFS.
PRIVATE companies have the right to freedom of association.

There is a vast difference between being deplatformed for bigotry or medical misinformation/snake oil VS the government punishing you for speech.

That you can't see the difference is pathetic.

 

[Moonbeam]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

I see the moral goodness that lies at the heart of your post. It is not fair for one side to be forced to be moral when the other side is not. Everybody should play fair. Because this is true and a real moral value it will be very difficult for you to admit to the criticism your post evoked. It's hard to see when your moral values are correct that separately, in the logic you use to apply them you have badly blundered. Fair play and moral behavior are good things but you have to understand them correctly to apply them properly. It is easy for propagandists to take some moral principle and convince people it is being violated when in fact it isn't being applied unfairly at all.

All that needs to happen for this kind of propaganda to sound appealing and right is for it to support some ego identification you have make like conservatives are good and liberals are bad. Ego identification easily turns moral good into immoral action. Once a person has been inculcated with the fear of being bad it's hard after that to see oneself that way even when it is true. The search for truth becomes a matter of dealing with the pain of discovery that our sacred cows aren't sacred and we went down a dark track. Enlightenment involves confronting the devil. Good luck.

 

[iRONic]

Shitlol

FDC on ignore ruins yet another thread.

 

[IronWing]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

^ Felix lying again? His fingers must be moving.

 

[HomerJS]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

As long as you've been here you still don't know what 1A means. That last one about Benghazi is just a non-sequitur

 

[Pens1566]

Never fails. There's always some dipshit that completely misunderstands the 1A.

 

[FelixDeCat]

That you would even try to equate direct actions by an Administration to limit Constitutional rights with actions taken by private companies to police their own digital media platforms (without anything resembling the consequences these immigrants face) just reinforces the fact you are not making a serious argument.

“but Zuck said Biden forced him to do it!” lol get fucking real.

It's true though.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I see the moral goodness that lies at the heart of your post. It is not fair for one side to be forced to be moral when the other side is not. Everybody should play fair. Because this is true and a real moral value it will be very difficult for you to admit to the criticism your post evoked. It's hard to see when your moral values are correct that separately, in the logic you use to apply them you have badly blundered. Fair play and moral behavior are good things but you have to understand them correctly to apply them properly. It is easy for propagandists to take some moral principle and convince people it is being violated when in fact it isn't being applied unfairly at all.

All that needs to happen for this kind of propaganda to sound appealing and right is for it to support some ego identification you have make like conservatives are good and liberals are bad. Ego identification easily turns moral good into immoral action. Once a person has been inculcated with the fear of being bad it's hard after that to see oneself that way even when it is true. The search for truth becomes a matter of dealing with the pain of discovery that our sacred cows aren't sacred and we went down a dark track. Enlightenment involves confronting the devil. Good luck.

So when Democrats are back in control you will not be calling for censorship?

 

[fskimospy]

So when Democrats are back in control you will not be calling for censorship?

Zero censorship happened. What happened is people in the US exercised their first amendment right to free speech.

You just don't like their free speech and so you're arguing against it.

 

[HomerJS]

So when Democrats are back in control you will not be calling for censorship?

What we are ALL saying you have no idea what 1A means

 

[fskimospy]

What we are ALL saying you have no idea what 1A means

Freedom of speech means I get to force people to say the things I want them to say, even if they don't want to.

I'm going to mail 1,000 leaflets denying the Holocaust to FDC's house. If he doesn't distribute them at his own expense he's a hypocrite who is against free speech.

 

[Moonbeam]

So when Democrats are back in control you will not be calling for censorship?

I did not ask you to abandon your sense that fairness is a part of justice and justice is good. Why do you suspect me of abandoning that same belief? How did you come to believe that liberals are evil in this way?

Peer review scientific studies, I hope the scientific investigation of truth matters to you, say that liberals are even more concerned about fairness than conservatives are because they are mostly only focused of fairness and justice whereas conservatives worry about a bunch of other things too.

Simple logic says that if you are concerned about 2 things and somebody else focus on 7, the amount of attention group one can pay to 2 will be higher than what is payed to 7 if the importance of each is equal.

So my answer to you is that you suspect I will go for censorship if I am in power and you believe that because you decency has been hijacked and used by your ego identification with people who use conservative morality to create enmity toward others for political votes to obtain power. The manipulators and power hungry have no real morality themselves and it will cause you moral pain if you ever wake from your conditioning.

I am not the droids you are looking for. I am not a believer. I lost all faith. What was left was understanding that can never be taken. I don’t believe. I know. I know what can be known when you don’t believe anything. I know that god is within you in a way words will never express.

 

[pmv]

I think it is a pretty widely held opinion among conservatives that to be in support of free speech private citizens must broadcast conservative speech at their own expense.

This is of course utterly insane but it doesn't change the fact that lots of right wingers believe it.

I have a tiny smigeon of sympathy for that view tbh. Not to the point of accepting it as akin to being taken off to a camp by the government, but the left has for a long time, in the pre-social-media world, complained of the one-sided nature of the privately-owned print media. There have been occasional attempts to pass legislation insisting the likes of the Murdoch press have to give a 'right of reply' to the groups and individuals they attack.

The most glaring case was when the print workers refused to print an edition of The Sun that was particularly vicious about Arthur Scargill, and the paper ended up coming out with a big blank space on the front page (union power and private property rights and 'freedom of speech' all colliding with each other).

There just isn't any solution to this though. True and absolute "freedom of speech" simply doesn't exist and maybe isn't possible in this world. And it's kind of funny to hear the right now moaning about the same system of private property rights that they usually defend uncompromisingly.

 

[Amused]

So when Democrats are back in control you will not be calling for censorship?

Then I take it you support forcing churches and church websites to feature atheist speakers and content?

Forcing Christian churches and websites to feature Muslim content?

How about forcing Alex Jones' website to feature fact checkers?

No?

WTF man?

Again, there is a VAST difference between private platforms censoring speech, and the government punishing speech.

As usual, your "freedom of speech" is also distinctly one sided. You demand unlimited platforming with no restrictions for bigotry and medical misinformation, while protecting platforms that feature that content from having opposing views.

And let's be honest here: The deplatforming was 100% for bigotry, slander (Alex Jones and Sandy Hook anyone?) and demonstrable medical misinformation. NOTHING ELSE.

The current right-wing in America is at war with human rights, decency and literal reality itself.

This sums up the right-wing crying about censorship: Imagine posting misleadingly clipped videos of Obama claiming they show him calling his wife "Michael" when that has been solidly debunked, and then crying you're "oppressed" because the private platform you posted that bullshit on put a fact check with links to the full videos that show he was talking about other people on your post.

Literally at war with reality itself.

Just fusk off. Seriously.

 

[amenx]

Most powerful thought police in the US bar none are the Zio thought police.

Nazis enjoy more rights in Trump's US: Mahmoud Khalil's lawyers blast deportation verdict

Lawyers for Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil blasted the verdict of the Lousiana court that said Khalil can be deported out of the country and said Nazis enjoy more rights in Donald Trump's US. “Nazis in this country, the Supreme Court has held, are able to demonstrate, are able to express their beliefs – but not Mahmoud Khalil. The Ku Klux Klan is able to march and express its beliefs – but not Mahmoud Khalil," Khalil’s attorney Marc van der Hout...

MSN

Demonstrating against genocide is anti-Semitic. It is "supporting Hamas".

 

[Brainonska511]

Most powerful thought police in the US bar none are the Zio thought police.

Nazis enjoy more rights in Trump's US: Mahmoud Khalil's lawyers blast deportation verdict

Lawyers for Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil blasted the verdict of the Lousiana court that said Khalil can be deported out of the country and said Nazis enjoy more rights in Donald Trump's US. “Nazis in this country, the Supreme Court has held, are able to demonstrate, are able to express their beliefs – but not Mahmoud Khalil. The Ku Klux Klan is able to march and express its beliefs – but not Mahmoud Khalil," Khalil’s attorney Marc van der Hout...

MSN

Demonstrating against genocide is anti-Semitic. It is "supporting Hamas".

Part of the problem is that this was an immigration judge. They won't adjudicate constitutional claims. But he will almost certainly challenge on constitutional grounds in an Article III court.

 

[dainthomas]

The thought police change with each administration.

Remember when people's online social media accounts were banned or demonitized for not agreeing with the governments position on Covid vaccines?

Then there was those kicked off YouTube for being conservative about gender or not embracing the gay agenda.

Then there was the attack on the embassy in Benghazi blamed on viral video.

So this has been going on since at least 2010.

TIL being kicked off Youtube is equivalent to being sent to a central American slave camp.

 

[amenx]

Thought police in action...

A sweeping crackdown on posts on Instagram and Facebook that are critical of Israel—or even vaguely supportive of Palestinians—was directly orchestrated by the government of Israel, according to internal Meta data obtained by Drop Site News. The data show that Meta has complied with 94% of takedown requests issued by Israel since October 7, 2023. Israel is the biggest originator of takedown requests globally by far, and Meta has followed suit—widening the net of posts it automatically removes, and creating what can be called the largest mass censorship operation in modern history...

Leaked Data Reveals Massive Israeli Campaign to Remove Pro-Palestine Posts on Facebook and Instagram

A sweeping crackdown on posts on Instagram and Facebook that are critical of Israel—or even vaguely supportive of Palestinians—was directly orchestrated by the government of Israel, according to internal Meta data obtained by Drop Site News.

www.dropsitenews.com

And as reported by The Intercept several months ago, a former "senior Israeli govt official" is working for Meta and is actively flagging posts or accounts for censorship.

A former senior Israeli government official now working as Meta’s Israel policy chief personally pushed for the censorship of Instagram accounts belonging to Students for Justice in Palestine — a group that has played a leading role in organizing campus protests against Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza.

Internal policy discussions reviewed by The Intercept show Jordana Cutler, Meta’s Israel & the Jewish Diaspora policy chief, used the company’s content escalation channels to flag for review at least four SJP posts, as well as other content expressing stances contrary to Israel’s foreign policy. When flagging SJP posts, Cutler repeatedly invoked Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, which bars users from freely discussing a secret list of thousands of blacklisted entities. The Dangerous Organizations policy restricts “glorification” of those on the blacklist, but is supposed to allow for “social and political discourse” and “commentary.”

Meta’s Israel Policy Chief Tried to Suppress Pro-Palestinian Instagram Posts

Jordana Cutler, Meta’s policy chief for Israel and the Jewish Diaspora, repeatedly flagged for censorship posts by Students for Justice in Palestine.

theintercept.com