Nothing is going to happen to them regardless. You really think the media is going to give any of this air time? LOL.
This is why they win. Their propagandists are in near total control of the narrative. That, and the fact that there is a huge segment of the populace that is only capable of being enraged about misdeeds if they are told to be enraged about them.
Well, on the bright side, the latest Munk debate created even more distrust of the MSM.
At some point, nothing any of these political propaganda mills broadcast will be taken as credible, or enough people will ignore them so they'll be forced to shut down. Everyone's too disillusioned with them to allow reform. For example, I don't think CNN's recent changes have convinced many former viewers to return.
It's right there in the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; but it's totally cool for them do order private companies to do it on their behalf outside of any created law or legal procedure."
250 years ago, the only forces powerful enough to silence people was a government. Today it's any overpaid twerp who has been taught that opposing ideas are heresy to be crushed on demand.
So far the funniest part to me is watching the unbelievably smarmy little worms like Ben Collins who are just snarking about Matt Taibbi and completely refusing to engage with one of the biggest political scandals of all time.
The only one not wiped on WayBack is GuySquiggs..
All are suspended except 2: ozwenya, let3481.
let3481 claims to be in Japan. ozwenya uses Chinese writing (Taiwan or Hong Kong) , GuySquiggs is East Asian.
You're so close, but they didn't steal an election from anyone. The entire system is designed to give you the illusion of control over your government, when in reality, they control the government; they control the information; and they control the narrative. Regardless of political affiliation, you're voting how they want you to vote, for the people they want you to vote for; and when one "team" loses, they tell you the other "team" cheated, but only 1 team actually took the field and they have you convinced the offense and defense are playing against each other.
This is American foreign policy SOP all over the world. It's the reason we push for universal suffrage and "democracy;" once the frothing masses are voting, the government they elect is no different than any other puppet regime, only difference is that was "the will of the people" who brought it about.
Twitter, youtube, Facebook, etc are the perfect tools for this.
Except the end result is the same. The government gets to censor the public. "Voluntarily" going along with it doesn't change that fact, and it certainly doesn't change their intentions.
If it were jackboot thugs smiling and having a good time cracking skulls because their boss ordered them to squash a legitimate peaceful protest, no one would be cutting them any slack at all or pretending "cooperating" is just a coincidence.
When your boss asks you to come in on Saturday, its not an order either. You can say no with all policy backing you.
In many workplaces people say yes despite not wanting to because they know that "cooperation" isn't optional. They aren't asking, they are giving themselves plausible deniability while demanding.
Politicians are managers of the system, they aren't bosses.
Hey you know who is usually the "boss" you report to everyday? Its not the CEO of Burger King, its the fucking manager. I don't even understand how you can type such a statement and think its anything worth saying.
they were clearly more than happy to cooperate with whatever entity asked them to to enact & justify more censorship.
This just in, you can't be ordered to do something you want to do. Apparently the world has bent backwards to change definitions of words just for your sake here.
I know when my own boss orders me to go home when I'm not looking 100%, its certainly not what I wanted to do anyway no sir.
Yes my original exampled used a common occurrence to demonstrate that "cooperation" isn't always given as an option, but as a front to pretend you have that choice. Even if you actively wanted to do so, its still an order. Some people enjoy/want the extra hours while others want to be home with their family. It doesn't magically change from an order because the result is different.
You giving a more specific example requires a specific response, it doesn't make anything I've said wrong in the slightest. But solid attempt at a gotcha, 4/10 would work on Twitter mobs.
The issue is that you're trying to pretend something is an "order" from a "political party" when it's not.
Except it is. They are being told to "review" these, with the clear intent being to "handle it" because they deemed it problematic. The twitter retards being happy to jump when asked how high doesn't change the original intention behind it. An order doesn't require resistance in any form, except whatever world you live in.
Regardless of the truth of the statement in other circumstances, what you've said is fundamentally irrelevant here.
Nay, it was providing an example of ambiguous "requests" given with the illusion of choice are still orders because the unspoken understanding is that saying no will bring consequences if not force. You wanting to do it, which seems to be your fundamental hangup, is what is irrelevant to that.
That's the entire problem here. You think them being willing to do it somehow makes it not an order, which isn't the reality of how words or authority works. I don't care about your little soapboxes about the nature of the world when you can't handle basic words.
I think that the important point of this is from the legal perspective this is not issuing orders, even if not complying ruins your work environment and ends up in a non-compliant worker being dismissed.
When the government gives millions of dollars to Twitter every year, "ask to review" is the same thing as order, because the implication is clear that Twitter is unofficially on the payroll.
Biden wasn't President yet so wouldn't this fall under a campaign violation?
Nope because the good guys did it!
They had to do it, to save our democracy!
Burn down the
villagedemocracy to save it.It's all so tiresome.
names should NOT be censored. these snakes deserve every ounce of wrath they get. and then some.
Nothing is going to happen to them regardless. You really think the media is going to give any of this air time? LOL.
This is why they win. Their propagandists are in near total control of the narrative. That, and the fact that there is a huge segment of the populace that is only capable of being enraged about misdeeds if they are told to be enraged about them.
Well, on the bright side, the latest Munk debate created even more distrust of the MSM.
At some point, nothing any of these political propaganda mills broadcast will be taken as credible, or enough people will ignore them so they'll be forced to shut down. Everyone's too disillusioned with them to allow reform. For example, I don't think CNN's recent changes have convinced many former viewers to return.
It's right there in the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; but it's totally cool for them do order private companies to do it on their behalf outside of any created law or legal procedure."
250 years ago, the only forces powerful enough to silence people was a government. Today it's any overpaid twerp who has been taught that opposing ideas are heresy to be crushed on demand.
Actually it's due to various forms of vote fraud, but supressing peoples access to legitimate info contributed.
No, they stole it through actual ballot manipulation.
Dumbshit.
Both. Plenty of normies voted for Biden based on false information
So far the funniest part to me is watching the unbelievably smarmy little worms like Ben Collins who are just snarking about Matt Taibbi and completely refusing to engage with one of the biggest political scandals of all time.
The only one not wiped on WayBack is GuySquiggs.. All are suspended except 2: ozwenya, let3481. let3481 claims to be in Japan. ozwenya uses Chinese writing (Taiwan or Hong Kong) , GuySquiggs is East Asian.
Stealing
You're so close, but they didn't steal an election from anyone. The entire system is designed to give you the illusion of control over your government, when in reality, they control the government; they control the information; and they control the narrative. Regardless of political affiliation, you're voting how they want you to vote, for the people they want you to vote for; and when one "team" loses, they tell you the other "team" cheated, but only 1 team actually took the field and they have you convinced the offense and defense are playing against each other.
This is American foreign policy SOP all over the world. It's the reason we push for universal suffrage and "democracy;" once the frothing masses are voting, the government they elect is no different than any other puppet regime, only difference is that was "the will of the people" who brought it about.
Twitter, youtube, Facebook, etc are the perfect tools for this.
That's a dishonest take and you know it.
It's a distinction without a difference.
Except the end result is the same. The government gets to censor the public. "Voluntarily" going along with it doesn't change that fact, and it certainly doesn't change their intentions.
I suppose that's a fair observation. It would mean Twitter was a willing participant rather than coerced, which makes their actions worse.
It's still the government issuing orders though.
If it were jackboot thugs smiling and having a good time cracking skulls because their boss ordered them to squash a legitimate peaceful protest, no one would be cutting them any slack at all or pretending "cooperating" is just a coincidence.
Its a fundamental distinction if you want to succeed in suing the DNC or the government
When your boss asks you to come in on Saturday, its not an order either. You can say no with all policy backing you.
In many workplaces people say yes despite not wanting to because they know that "cooperation" isn't optional. They aren't asking, they are giving themselves plausible deniability while demanding.
Hey you know who is usually the "boss" you report to everyday? Its not the CEO of Burger King, its the fucking manager. I don't even understand how you can type such a statement and think its anything worth saying.
This just in, you can't be ordered to do something you want to do. Apparently the world has bent backwards to change definitions of words just for your sake here.
I know when my own boss orders me to go home when I'm not looking 100%, its certainly not what I wanted to do anyway no sir.
Yes my original exampled used a common occurrence to demonstrate that "cooperation" isn't always given as an option, but as a front to pretend you have that choice. Even if you actively wanted to do so, its still an order. Some people enjoy/want the extra hours while others want to be home with their family. It doesn't magically change from an order because the result is different.
You giving a more specific example requires a specific response, it doesn't make anything I've said wrong in the slightest. But solid attempt at a gotcha, 4/10 would work on Twitter mobs.
Except it is. They are being told to "review" these, with the clear intent being to "handle it" because they deemed it problematic. The twitter retards being happy to jump when asked how high doesn't change the original intention behind it. An order doesn't require resistance in any form, except whatever world you live in.
Nay, it was providing an example of ambiguous "requests" given with the illusion of choice are still orders because the unspoken understanding is that saying no will bring consequences if not force. You wanting to do it, which seems to be your fundamental hangup, is what is irrelevant to that.
That's the entire problem here. You think them being willing to do it somehow makes it not an order, which isn't the reality of how words or authority works. I don't care about your little soapboxes about the nature of the world when you can't handle basic words.
I think that the important point of this is from the legal perspective this is not issuing orders, even if not complying ruins your work environment and ends up in a non-compliant worker being dismissed.
So many shills coming out of the woodwork to run interference today. Interesting.
Did the Biden team “order” twitter?
Or merely “ask to review” ?
When the government gives millions of dollars to Twitter every year, "ask to review" is the same thing as order, because the implication is clear that Twitter is unofficially on the payroll.
They actually mention that both parties had things removed, but since Democrats knew many more people at Twitter, they pretty much ran the show.