FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Or you're spinning someone's poor choice of quote for your own purposes. This one's for you and Finn:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...e/70350305007/

Groups such as Moms for Liberty should know their every move will be scrutinized by the left in this incredibly polarized environment. It was a few weeks ago that the Southern Poverty Law Center called Moms for Liberty an “extremist” group.

The power of language:Book ban debate plays into deepening divides. Are we either 'fascists' or 'groomers'?

So Moms for Liberty ought to be well aware that they must be careful in what they say and do.

It’s worth noting this Indiana chapter is just one of nearly 300 around the country, and certainly isn’t representative of the whole organization. In this case, the chapter was trying to paint its opponents – and the leftist indoctrination the group fears – as fascists. In doing so, the label was turned on them.

Maybe the lesson here is that we should stop calling each other fascists so flippantly.

Now, if some of you would actually debate rather than label...nah, it'll never happen.

An opinion piece from a Hillsdale College grad? LOL. Shouldn't you be quoting Stalin or Mao per the instructions given at the Moms for Liberty Annual Convention?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You did not show a single instance of government coercion. Your argument, like that of the two MAGA AG's and the judge involved in the case, are not being made in good faith (as is nearly always true of all things MAGA).

Bullshit. Among others, post 3115 lays it out pretty clearly. The Fed government didn't censor anyone, but they put pressure on the right people in the right places to get others to do it for them. Go back and look at what I posted: the FBI even told the folks at Twitter that they weren't happy with Twitter's efforts to that point.

Was that the gov't intent with their outreach to Twitter and others? The FBI says no, but the tactics used and the folks involved tend to paint a different picture. If it wasn't their intent, then lump it in with the law of unintended consequences.

Either way, the result is the same: the Feds involved themselves, which resulted in Twitter and others removing or deprioritizing content that they wouldn't have otherwise reacted to.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Bullshit. Among others, post 3115 lays it out pretty clearly. The Fed government didn't censor anyone, but they put pressure on the right people in the right places to get others to do it for them. Go back and look at what I posted: the FBI even told the folks at Twitter that they weren't happy with Twitter's efforts to that point.

Was that the gov't intent with their outreach to Twitter and others? The FBI says no, but the tactics used and the folks involved tend to paint a different picture. If it wasn't their intent, then lump it in with the law of unintended consequences.

Either way, the result is the same: the Feds involved themselves, which resulted in Twitter and others removing or deprioritizing content that they wouldn't have otherwise reacted to.

Translation: While I agree that they didn't compel anyone to do anything, if I repeat it often enough credulous MAGAMorons like me will believe it.

Twitter's own lawyers refuted Musk and Taibbi's assertion of coercion in court filings:

“Nothing in the new materials shows any governmental actor compelling or even discussing any content-moderation action with respect to Trump” and others participating in the suit, Twitter argued.

The communications unearthed as part of the Twitter Files do not show coercion, Twitter’s lawyers wrote, “because they do not contain a specific government demand to remove content—let alone one backed by the threat of government sanction.”

“Instead,” the filing continued, the communications “show that the [FBI] issued general updates about their efforts to combat foreign interference in the 2020 election...”

Citing another case, Twitter wrote: “The FBI’s ‘flags’ cannot amount to coercion because there was ‘no intimation that Twitter would suffer adverse consequences if it refused.’”

https://www.wral.com/twitter-s-own-l...ship/20898085/

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Why do their parents get to decide what my kids are or are not ready for?

Originally Posted by whell

It may be appropriate for teens in some folk's opinion. I don't think it belongs in a school library.

Please answer to Ricky's post.

[Rajoo]

A group of wacked out ill educated moms led by the nose by alt right wing of a Fascist party cannot be allowed to censor library books. If these wacko moms do not want their children to be educated in a conventional public system, home school them.

About time we had Christian madrassas so that these children be brainwashed in a controlled setting.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Translation: While I agree that they didn't compel anyone to do anything, if I repeat it often enough credulous MAGAMorons like me will believe it.

Translation - I'll just call you names 'cuz I got nothing else.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Twitter's own lawyers refuted Musk and Taibbi's assertion of coercion in court filings:

[I]“Nothing in the new materials shows any governmental actor compelling or even discussing any content-moderation action with respect to Trump” and others participating in the suit, Twitter argued.

So what? That asserts they didn't flag posts about Trump. The FBI indeed flagged specific posts for Twitter to "moderate". This includes FBI requests to act against posts on accounts with few "followers" on Twitter.
Who cares if they weren't about Trump. What legitimate role does the FBI have in flagging specific posts and telling Twitter they need to take action on them?

Originally Posted by finnbow

The communications unearthed as part of the Twitter Files do not show coercion, Twitter’s lawyers wrote, “because they do not contain a specific government demand to remove content—let alone one backed by the threat of government sanction.”

No government actors? "DHS worked with "security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content." The DHS outsourced the "coercive action" to third parties.

Describing the Twitter-FBI relationship as "The master-canine quality," Taibbi said that this came through in this November 2022 email, in which "FBI San Francisco is notifying you" it wants action on four accounts: One account on the list tweeted mostly satire, but Twitter employees still rushed to "look for reasons to suspend" the account for "civic misinformation."

Yoel Roth was getting 150 emails a month from the FBI with specific "moderation requests". "In an internal email from November 5, 2022, the FBI's National Election Command Post, which compiles and sends on complaints, sent the SF field office a long list of accounts that 'may warrant additional action'," he (Talibbi) added.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The communications unearthed as part of the Twitter Files do not show coercion, Twitter’s lawyers wrote, “because they do not contain a specific government demand to remove content—let alone one backed by the threat of government sanction.”

The FBI calls you or emails you and directs you to take action. Is your first response to do it? Or is your first response to not do it and wait to see what the FBI's response is?

Not very compelling arguments you're making in light of the facts, Finn.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

...Yoel Roth was getting 150 emails a month from the FBI with specific "moderation requests". "In an internal email from November 5, 2022, the FBI's National Election Command Post, which compiles and sends on complaints, sent the SF field office a long list of accounts that 'may warrant additional action'," he (Talibbi) added...

The FBI calls you or emails you and directs you to take action.

Only in MAGAWorld does a note that something "may warrant additional action" constitute government coercion (Oxford defines coercion as "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.").

So, a request that something "may warrant additional action" is coercion but overt threats made to Georgia Sec of State to engage in election fraud is not coercion, but a "perfect phone call." And you wonder why normal people don't want MAGAMorons picking out school books.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Only in MAGAWorld does a note that something "may warrant additional action" constitute government coercion (Oxford defines coercion as "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.").

So, a request that something "may warrant additional action" is coercion but overt threats made to Georgia Sec of State to engage in election fraud is not coercion, but a "perfect phone call." And you wonder why normal people don't want MAGAMorons picking out school books.

It's gotten to the point where our resident MAGAMoron is clearly a hardcore fascist. The more facts and logic you use on him, the more BS he pushes back.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Only in MAGAWorld does a note that something "may warrant additional action" constitute government coercion (Oxford defines coercion as "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.").

So, a request that something "may warrant additional action" is coercion but overt threats made to Georgia Sec of State to engage in election fraud is not coercion, but a "perfect phone call." And you wonder why normal people don't want MAGAMorons picking out school books.

Now that is what I call a perfect answer.

PS: I also have a question.
What would you call Trump posting Mr. Obama's DC address?
A public service message?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Now that is what I call a perfect answer.

PS: I also have a question.
What would you call Trump posting Mr. Obama's DC address?
A public service message?

Doxxing with an intent to intimidate a former President, particularly when a guy armed to the teeth shows up immediately thereafter. Whell squawked loudly about the armed clown in a SCOTUS judge's neighborhood, but is oddly silent when Dear Leader calls out the troops to threaten Obama. I don't recall Biden doxxing Kavanaugh.