SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Direct collusion
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1662084150

Message started by pg on 09/01/22 at 19:02:30

Title: Direct collusion
Post by pg on 09/01/22 at 19:02:30

I have long suspected a direct collusion with the federal authorities and social media companies. This was met with much dis-contempt by people stating these are private companies and they can filter and suppress the content of the material as they see fit.

Even Zuckerberg has come forward and admitted the authorities warned him about 'Russian Propaganda" as they suppressed the investigation. This had a material impact on the election.

At what point does this really become a freedom of speech violation? Do you think it is a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of people de-platformed are conservative?

Best regards,

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/01/22 at 19:47:32

Big tech,just another arm of the government

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/01/22 at 20:03:40

At what point does this really become a freedom of speech violation?

When the privately owned social media companies are either not privately owned, or the Constitution is amended to indicate even private businesses, and individual owners, like this forum for instance, can be criminally prosecuted for not allowing everyone to use it.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by pg on 09/01/22 at 23:54:13

6646444C5146230 wrote:

At what point does this really become a freedom of speech violation?

When the privately owned social media companies are either not privately owned, or the Constitution is amended to indicate even private businesses, and individual owners, like this forum for instance, can be criminally prosecuted for not allowing everyone to use it.

By your statement an entity cannot influence the means of production unless it is the owned....

Best regards,

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by WebsterMark on 09/02/22 at 03:40:50

5777757D6077120 wrote:

No, you’re wrong. That same media is used by the government to inform its citizens of emergencies. Which means the government is very well aware of the influence those platforms have on the general public.

When government agencies in lock step executive or legislative branch, step in and use those platforms to directly interfere in an election by withholding information damaging to their preferred political opponent or by encouraging publication of false information to benefit their preferred political opponent, that’s censorship.

Social media and media in general have grown so large and influential that any forcible attempt by the government to alter content for devious political means is no different then the historical meaning of censorship such as Pravda as an example.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/02/22 at 05:52:34

"By your statement an entity cannot influence the means of production unless it is the owned...."

I will need further clarification. What I mean to convey is that a privately owned company is not subject to Free Speech in the same way a Government run entity is.

For instance I run my own company, we have our own encrypted messaging program and I am not required by any part of the Constitution to recognize the 1st Amendment. We can censor anything we wish and only allow access to approved individuals. This is specific to 1st Amendment and only 1st Amendment with the exemption of all other known things.

Now if this privately run messaging program was publicly run, then the guidelines would be different.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by zevenenergie on 09/02/22 at 05:58:24

What I've learned:
News channels, left or right, conservative or liberal. mainstream or alternative...

They all want to tell you how to think.

And because we are all identified with our thinking......

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/02/22 at 05:59:40

"No, you’re wrong. That same media is used by the government to inform its citizens of emergencies. Which means the government is very well aware of the influence those platforms have on the general public."

And can any of these companies refuse to allow the government to use their platform? Can Twitter, tomorrow, if they wanted, refuse to allow all Federal communications to exist on their platform, including emergencies?

Yes they could. Because they are privately owned and operated. They do not have to allow people to use their program because of "free speech" laws. Those only apply to the Government.

When government agencies in lock step executive or legislative branch, step in and use those platforms to directly interfere in an election by withholding information damaging to their preferred political opponent or by encouraging publication of false information to benefit their preferred political opponent, that’s censorship.

It may be censorship, but how is this a violation of "free speech" when the medium used is owned by a private company? The private company at the end of the day is choosing what appears on their program, not the Government. The First Amendment imposes very strict non-discrimination structure on "government actors."

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube are not Government Actors.

I get it that the Government is using these platforms, but the company itself has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment. If anything one could sue the Government for misusing a private company, but on the other end Facebook etc. have a media right.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by pg on 09/02/22 at 07:36:28

133331392433560 wrote:

"By your statement an entity cannot influence the means of production unless it is the owned...."

What I mean to convey is that a privately owned company is not subject to Free Speech in the same way a Government run entity is.

BUMP - At what point does this really become a freedom of speech violation?

Best regards,

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/02/22 at 07:41:24

At what point does this really become a freedom of speech violation?

When private companies/citizens are held to the same free speech standard by the US Constitution as Government actors.

At this time no citizen or private company has an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights. Significant changes to US law would need to happen. Starting with allowing me to sue you if you do not let me use your company's assets to say things I want.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by WebsterMark on 09/02/22 at 08:15:45

6F4F4D45584F2A0 wrote:

You’re missing the bigger and most important point. Can they refuse? Sure, but a specific administration is using them because they’re on the same team.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by MnSpring on 09/02/22 at 08:20:05

"... can any of these companies refuse to allow the government to use their platform? ...because they are privately owned and operated..."

Yes. Agree

Yet if one had a influencing platform.
And a government entity came to you and said;
'You will do this, or this will happen' (Threatening)
'You will do this, and this will happen' (Bribe)

Don't think anybody, that owns a 'influencing platform' has the balls to say no to any variation of the above.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/02/22 at 10:15:56

"You’re missing the bigger and most important point. Can they refuse? Sure, but a specific administration is using them because they’re on the same team."

This could be but I fail to see how that would be, by today's standards, a violation of free speech as protected by the US Constitution. I believe it has more to do with the supporter of which POTUS is in office than actual free speech. For instance if Facebook allowed Trump back on with no restrictions and then banned Biden, I don't think the same people would be complaining about how Facebook is in violation of free speech.

Too many people think that not being able to say what they want is a violation of free speech. If I am banned from (insert any online service) my free speech is violated! Nope.

Once these companies start committing to "public forum" identifiers, then we have some grounds to utilize 1st Amendment regulation.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/02/22 at 10:18:33

Yet if one had a influencing platform.
And a government entity came to you and said;
'You will do this, or this will happen' (Threatening)
'You will do this, and this will happen' (Bribe)

Don't think anybody, that owns a 'influencing platform' has the balls to say no to any variation of the above.

I think that would be a totally different set of crimes and legal questions than the 1st Amendment. Trump was restricted from most of these platforms while in office so I'm not sure Government bribery and threats were part of it. I have no way to tell.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by pg on 09/03/22 at 03:47:50

I think that would be a totally different set of crimes and legal questions than the 1st Amendment.

I disagree, it does bring into question a new set of legal issues and most likely new crimes. However, the end result is likely the 1st amendment being directly affected. By your position you state if an entity is privately owned they there can be no collusion if they don't accept the foreign influence. The real world just doesn't work that way..............

Best regards,

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/03/22 at 08:48:27

What the company did? Meh, I saw it. Everyone who has any honesty watched companies crush any voices speaking something other than the democrat approved line. While it was Just assholes with the power to be assholes people like me just avoided those platforms.

BUT
When the FBI TELLS THEM to Not allow certain points of view to get traction
That should be a Great Concern for EVERYONE. But the lefties benefited and refuse to see what a REAL THREAT to Their society that really is.
The laptop is Very Real and the constant harassment of Trump is just trying to destroy the one guy who wants to straighten this crap out. If you don't see Hillary and Hunter as people who need an honest investigation, IDK what to say.
Look at all the multimillionaires in Congress who weren't rich when they got there.
Guess who won't be audited.
The people who for the last couple of years who have been so desperate to make you take the jabs?
Nope, can't make them take it.
And the people who work for moderna? Nope,
But you just keep on believing.

I'm just waiting for the left to blame Trump for the jab.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by MnSpring on 09/03/22 at 09:13:28

From Facebook Terms
“...This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others…”

Which is, if you took the most Fabulous Photo, Meme, writing, etc. Facebook CAN SELL it, over and over and over, because YOU Said so ! And you get No compensation, and NO credit !

So does that make Facebook, and the like, “Private”. So that platform can influence any political position they want, and banish/suppress any the company does not want !

Or does IS FB Public. Because they Very Strongly IMPLY they Are ?

1B3B39312C3B5E0 wrote:

"... Once these companies start committing to "public forum" identifiers, then we have some grounds to utilize 1st Amendment regulation.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by MnSpring on 09/03/22 at 09:31:19

"... FBI TELLS THEM to Not allow certain points of view to get traction ..."

Like investigate 2 people taking about grand children, Laptop/s, deals selling US goods at substandard prices, killing US Citizens in a ($hit hole) country, wiping a illegal server clean, killing rivers for 100's of years. etc, etc, etc.

Yet Pi$$on on Beds, Russian Convolution, J6, doing the SAME THING as Clinton/Obama did, etc.etc. etc.

It is Balls to the WALL !

Wating now for someone to tell us again how FB and other social platforms, are Private, and they can express any one sided view they want.

YET, IMPLY, in every way they can,
they are Public, Social networks that are, 'fair'.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by pg on 09/03/22 at 16:50:58

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-social-media-censorship

“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased,” Jenin Younes, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance who is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. “The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed.”

Government lawyers only identified 45 officials at five agencies—the Department of Homeland Security, CISA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Murthy’s office—who communicated with social media companies on misinformation, although documents they produced showed others were involved, including officials at the Census Bureau and the Departments of Treasury and State.

Responses from the Big Tech companies also revealed more officials involved with the effort.

Meta has disclosed that at least 32 federal officials, including top officials at the White House and the Food and Drug Administration, were in communication with it about content moderation. Many of the officials weren’t identified in the response by the government.

How about them apples............

Best regards,

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/03/22 at 18:25:00

Misinformation
Anything that the lefties don't believe

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/03/22 at 21:44:39

"By your position you state if an entity is privately owned they there can be no collusion if they don't accept the foreign influence."

No I said a privately owned company is not in violation of "free-speech" because privately owned companies have no legal obligation to protect your 1st Amendment.

They can be in collusion with any number of things, but they can not be sued by people for violating their free speech. This forum for instance does not have to allow everyone to use it's service or face judicial action for violating our rights.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/03/22 at 21:49:31

"Which is, if you took the most Fabulous Photo, Meme, writing, etc. Facebook CAN SELL it, over and over and over, because YOU Said so ! And you get No compensation, and NO credit !"

Yes, if you choose to use Facebook, they have the rights to anything on their platform. It's theirs to utilize once you agree to place content onto their business platform. People who do not agree to this can choose to not use Facebook.

"So does that make Facebook, and the like, “Private”. So that platform can influence any political position they want, and banish/suppress any the company does not want !"

Yes, this is how private capitalist business works. Business owners have control over their business. For instance if a pillow salesman wants to only have certain views on his privately owned forum, that's legal.

"Or does IS FB Public. Because they Very Strongly IMPLY they Are ?"

No.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/03/22 at 22:36:23

Maybe I failed.
I don't Appreciate a business that pretends to be a platform for everyone but isn't.

The PROBLEM, boys and girls is THE FBI TOLD THEM TO crappity smackOVER ANYONE WHO POINTED OUT THE BIDEN BULLSHIT.
The PROBLEM is a fukkin out of control FBI who told a company that was all too happy to comply.
Nope, none of it is okay.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/03/22 at 22:43:45

So are you saying the FBI "forced" them?

I see it as two distinctly different things. If the FBI mandated the actions then there is an issue. If they requested and the business complied then there is nothing legally wrong with that.

None of this impacts free-speech because Facebook has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

Bottom line is we all know if Facebook kicked Biden off and allowed Trump to stay then the same people here would not be complaining about how horrible Facebook is. It's only bad if the guy we like is the victim.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/04/22 at 03:55:42

control FBI who told a company that was all too happy to comply.
Nope, none of it is okay.

Absolutely!!

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/04/22 at 04:20:56

So are you saying the FBI "forced" them?

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by WebsterMark on 09/04/22 at 04:51:17

Again, the FBI didn’t need to force them. They simply used them as a tool to improve the election prospects for their preferred candidate. They did this by asking or implying they wanted social media companies to withhold and remove (censor) information published on their platforms.

That’s not a role the FBI should take. If asked, they should have refused. If someone in a leadership position suggested and acted on that idea, it should be known who.

As far as consequences for the companies themselves? That’s up to their customers. The truth about Twitter, Facebook etc.. is conservatives can never leave because both conservatives and liberals want a platform to fight on. There’s no fight if conservatives go to one platform and liberals go to the other. That’s why social media will survive.

I do find it humorous and conservatives complain about Twitter but they keep posting on their account and having advertisements for their books articles etc. It’s a moneymaking venture for them.

It’s like the women complaining about men dressing up as girls and participating in their sports. They could stop it immediately. The best case was that Pennsylvania swimmer. All the other girls needed to do was stand on their blocks when the gun went off let him swim by himself. All they had to do was do that a couple of times and it would’ve been over. But they couldn’t. They can’t unite. Same thing with conservatives on social media. They’ll talk about leaving and starting their own, but without liberals, there’s no fight. Without a fight, there’s no money.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by MnSpring on 09/05/22 at 08:53:20

0424262E3324410 wrote:

"... People who do not agree to this can choose to not use Facebook. ..."

Another Deflection.
Why do you keep saying, (the equivalent of), 'Water is Wet ?

"...a pillow salesman wants to only have certain views on his privately owned forum, that's legal...."

Yep !

And that Pillow Salesman, has NEVER Implied, he presents both sides !

Unlike FB, (and like) which Suggests, STRONGLY Imply's, Gives the Illusion, they allow BOTH sides to give a POV.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by MnSpring on 09/05/22 at 08:55:42

"...All the other girls needed to do was stand on their blocks when the gun went off let him swim by himself ... do that a couple of times and it would’ve been over. ..."

They couldn't,
They had no Balls !

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by MnSpring on 09/05/22 at 09:09:53

2707050D1007620 wrote:

So are you saying the FBI "forced" them?

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/05/22 at 19:07:58

I will repeat;

Yet if one had a influencing platform.
And a government entity came to you and said;
'You will do this, or this will happen' (Threatening)
'You will do this, and this will happen' (Bribe)

Adding one line;

If the FBI, or other lettered 'agency',
'Suggested' one do this or that,
90% would pee in their pants.
Then do what they were TOLD to do.

Got it, so you are imagining things you have no evidence of and acting like it is fact.

Facebook is a private company, they have no obligation to protect your first amendment rights.

This has nothing to do with ethics, this only has to do with a private company not supporting the guy you like.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/05/22 at 19:11:18

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/05/22 at 21:06:46

You tell me what fukkin BUSINESS the MutherFukkin FBI has ASKING them to censor everything they wanted to call misinformation.
They PRETEND to be a platform for all voices, until someone says something that the lefties don't like.
And IIRC, someone came up with a competing platform.
Ohh,LOOKIE! You can't get the servers to work..
Some chickenshit crap.
Just admit its a stacked deck.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/06/22 at 12:19:47

"You tell me what fukkin BUSINESS the MutherFukkin FBI has ASKING them to censor everything they wanted to call misinformation.
They PRETEND to be a platform for all voices, until someone says something that the lefties don't like.
And IIRC, someone came up with a competing platform.
Ohh,LOOKIE! You can't get the servers to work..
Some chickenshit crap.
Just admit its a stacked deck."

It's a private business, they can run their business how they want. They have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment right so this is not a free speech issue. It's you not liking how they run their business.

If they were censoring Biden and allowing Trump to use the platform you most likely wouldn't be complaining.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/06/22 at 13:12:37

You are WRONG.
And frankly, I'm pisstoff at you for suggesting that.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Serowbot on 09/06/22 at 16:24:22

I just had a comment censored on Yahoo.
I'm not crying about it.
I said what I thought, they deemed it inappropriate.
No big deal.

Life ain't about tweets. ::)

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/06/22 at 17:21:26

Are you that Dense? The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sicced a company on the pe.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/06/22 at 19:38:21

"Are you that Dense? The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sicced a company on the pe."

The FBI requested a private company censor/remove specific material and that private company chose to comply.

The issue I have is the tremendous amount of pro-Trump material that is n Facebook. If the FBI wasn't allowing this why are all those pages posts and members still on Facebook?

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/06/22 at 20:15:30

You're kidding, right?
You equate trying to keep attention on Hunter's crimes with some positive Trump words?
You can't discern the difference?

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/06/22 at 20:24:54

I don't care about the difference because I can see that Facebook is a tremendously poor location to obtain any information about any topic. Facebook is a privately owned social media site where anyone can put anything until Facebook removes it. It's garbage information and I see equal amounts of garbage from all kinds of political avenues. If I can go to the local library or a series of dumpster fires I don't go around complaining about how the City isn't fairly regulating the papers that end up in these dumpster fires.

This isn't a 1st Amendment issue. Facebook has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

If there is garbage facts all over Facebook then don't use Facebook to obtain and spread your facts.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/06/22 at 22:12:14

I don't care about how you evaluate FB as a source. I don't even have an account.
I don't care about the whether or not they are obliged to protect my First amendment rights. I CARE that an element of the mutherfukkin federal government asked them to censor the people who were trying to have a conversation about the laptop.
Do you get that yet? I don't give one flying FUKK about FB. But for the FBI to approach someone and suggest they should censor the people, THAT IS A PPRROOBBLLEEMM.
Got it?
Ohh,and the laptop? It's really real. And instead of the FBI investigating Hunter,, they are screwing with Trump.

FB may not be legally obliged to protect my First amendment rights
But the fukking FBI ARE. You know that cute little oath? Yeah, That one.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Eegore on 09/07/22 at 07:23:55

FB may not be legally obliged to protect my First amendment rights
But the fukking FBI ARE. You know that cute little oath? Yeah, That one.

Yeah so the FBI can not prosecute You for speaking your opinion in a legal method or in an actual public forum. They can however request a private business, that has no obligation to protect your rights, to remove specific content from their privately owned and funded assets.

Since Facebook has no obligation to protect your rights, the FBI is not infringing on your rights when they request a private business do something with their privately owned assets.

If they interfered with an actual public forum or your actual legal rights then there would be a free-speech issue.

" But for the FBI to approach someone and suggest they should censor the people, THAT IS A PPRROOBBLLEEMM.
Got it?"

"The People" or people that choose to use Facebook? Customers maybe, but I don't see this as an infringement on the American Public as it only pertains to people that want to get news from Facebook. Facebook is pretty clear that they are a private company to share information with people you select to interact with, not a journalism company obligated to provide information to the general public.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by MnSpring on 09/07/22 at 07:47:09

4E6E6C64796E0B0 wrote:

"... The FBI requested a private company censor/remove specific material and that private company chose to comply..."

A Yep, the ~~F ucking Bumbling Idiots~~, er FBI, 'REQUESTED', (Cough-cough).

Perhaps someone needs to read the TRUTH of the, 'Ruby Ridge', and Waco events
NOT, the sanitized FBI versions.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Serowbot on 09/07/22 at 07:47:43

I don't do Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or any of those pop culture things you have to sign up for.
I also use DuckDuckGo instead of Google (same thing with out tracking)

My net footprint is pretty much here, and Scarlett Johansson's boobies... :-?

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by MnSpring on 09/07/22 at 07:50:53

0F2F2D25382F4A0 wrote:

"... Facebook is pretty clear that they are a private company to share information with people you select to interact with..."

Incorrect

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/07/22 at 08:14:34

FBI requested a private company censor/remove specific material and that private company chose to comply..."

Indefensible behavior.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Serowbot on 09/07/22 at 08:28:08

Thousands of Russian bots repeating the same lies as Trump...

Ah,... the good ol' days

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/07/22 at 09:21:31

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Sq1arisV7uBZHvcWX4cS8sGOvq9v4lk28R-9j2vNukYawjSaeXg8nZ0O6_S8kW5nTwbGyLI9UYM9B4t8NjIZBUlsD8J8Pj-TKci0Yo39vcTu27hfLG25bWpopUsF8c0a9ww1hUG2aXjEyrDlanweWU-xZ4C58oVYe2AinoRY2QwOdQCnXAcJGtQzWg/s786/90mimb_8675f703c64a486a162c8878db740ede_95312eeb_540.jpg

http://https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Sq1arisV7uBZHvcWX4cS8sGOvq9v4lk28R-9j2vNukYawjSaeXg8nZ0O6_S8kW5nTwbGyLI9UYM9B4t8NjIZBUlsD8J8Pj-TKci0Yo39vcTu27hfLG25bWpopUsF8c0a9ww1hUG2aXjEyrDlanweWU-xZ4C58oVYe2AinoRY2QwOdQCnXAcJGtQzWg/s786/90mimb_8675f703c64a486a162c8878db740ede_95312eeb_540.jpg

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Serowbot on 09/07/22 at 11:42:12

"Evidence" from a guy named 45+JFKJRISALIVE...
Really?... JFK Jr is alive??????

Jewish space lasers... Liberal baby eaters, Flat earthers, mass extinction vaccines, on and on...

This is why Facebook has to nanny it's viewers.

The Onion is a parody... and it's way more believable than Q-Anon and 4chan or whatever the tRumper loons follow today.

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by Serowbot on 09/07/22 at 11:52:56

This is the kind of news source you follow?

Painting apples?...
https://t.me/s/ed49259925

Title: Re: Direct collusion
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/07/22 at 12:41:13

Yeah, it's bogus.
I get excited.. I can admit being wrong.

Kyle
Self defense
Can you?