ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Wonder if Trump still loves wikileaks the same way he proclaimed to when Assange was releasing stolen emails to assist his campaign?

Sure seems quiet :)

Holy shit. A The_Impeacher post I agree with so much I could have typed it myself, except for the words I've omitted.

It's sad, though, that The_Impeacher doesn't mean it and considers Assange to be an archvillain.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Imagine having several million personal stories of censorship that could be used in court. Big Tech is going to have their ass served up on a platter. No amount of money in the world can save them if they don't pull their heads out now.

It's far too late for that.

As everyone knows, the internet is forever. The last several years of absurdly one-sided censorship is on full display, archived in a million different archival services, and searchable. The "personal stories" has more to do with presenting a clear, media-friendly corpus than court evidence.

The reality was always that big tech could either be publishers or platforms, and they had to choose, and now they must face the consequences of that choice. They flew too close to the sun and the gravity of heavy-handed regulation is coming for them now.

pneuma, Facebook in particular has banned MANY progressive pages that contradict corporatist media narratives. While I agree censorship has mostly targeted the right (and not the far right — it's not as if Richard Spencer and David Duke have been banned) in order to disguise censorship as a partiaan issue, in truth it's not particularly partisan.

"

AldarisGrave wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

It was a bit more than just being accused. He also fled. Fleeing is kind of an indication of guilt.

So your telling me that fleeing persecution equates to being guilty as charged? Man i sure do hope you never become a whistle-blower or part of a persecuted group, because if you flee your admitting to wrong doing.

That's some rather messed up logic you got there mate.

BS, an indication is not the same thing as equating to guilty as charged, don't be a fool. You are suffering from some rather messed up thinking there mate.

If you were a cop walking your beat and you turn the corner and see a man and woman. The man sees you then starts running the other direction and the woman screams, "Give me my purse back!" What are you going to think?

Now take the same situation only this time when the women screams, "Give me my purse back!" and the man sees you then says to her, "Stop being hysterical." instead of running away. Aren't you going to think something different in this case?

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Wonder if Trump still loves wikileaks the same way he proclaimed to when Assange was releasing Kremlin stolen emails to assist his illegitimate campaign?

Sure seems quiet :)

Probably even more because Assange isn't releasing anything against Trump's administration. Trump will let the DOJ go through all the motions, and then pardon Assange and grant him asylum in the U.S.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

pneuma, Facebook in particular has banned MANY progressive pages that contradict corporatist media narratives. While I agree censorship has mostly targeted the right (and not the far right — it's not as if Richard Spencer and David Duke have been banned) in order to disguise censorship as a partiaan issue, in truth it's not particularly partisan.

Its extremely partisan. This is why the censorship reporting tool is so important - it can gather enough verifiable evidence to prove what millions of people have experienced. Big Tech isn't just censoring people for saying things that are supposedly against terms of service - they are censoring people for following too many conservatives, or retweeting what conservatives say, but not for retweeting what liberals say.

You are out of the loop on this one Scrotie. They aren't just hitting big names or outspoken people. They are trying to silence voices before the 2020 elections.

Once proven, there will be prison sentences for quite a few people in big tech.

Deep State is about to lose the powerful democrats that protect them. The legal carnage that will hit deep state will only be matched by the number of them that flip and rat out big tech in order to plea bargain their own sentences down.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Big Tech isn't just censoring people for saying things that are supposedly against terms of service - they are censoring people for following too many conservatives, or retweeting what conservatives say, but not for retweeting what liberals say.

You are out of the loop on this one Scrotie. They aren't just hitting big names or outspoken people. They are trying to silence voices before the 2020 elections.

I'm not out of the loop, Dalai. You're just refusing to acknowledge that anyone who publicly criticizes the uniparty establishment is vulnerable to banning and has been banned, and have been in significant numbers.

Let's put it this way, Dalai: in the recent UK elections for MEP, Nigel Farage told a reporter that the leave/remain issue is becoming more important than left vs right in the minds of many Brits, which is how he's been able to unite so many under the "nonpartisan" Brexit Party banner. But it's not truly nonpartisan; while it may be in regards to left/right, the Brexit Party is obv partisan in terms of leave/remain, and the media is not attacking the Right to appease the Left, but attacking Leave (to include socialist Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn) at the benefit of Remain.

The censorship employed by Big Tech has a similar quality — it's not a left/right thing, but it is more than biased, it serves apolitical agenda. Dig?

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Remember: Although Putin assisted in Trump's false 'victory'

He probably also poisoned Khillary right?

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Nobody poisoned Hillary. This is more propaganda nonsense

No shit, the same goes with Putin helping Trump to win.

Trump won because Hillary was the worst candidate possible, No Russians helped with that.

"

Head_Less wrote:

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Nobody poisoned Hillary. This is more propaganda nonsense

No shit, the same goes with Putin helping Trump to win.

Trump won because Hillary was the worst candidate possible, No Russians helped with that.

Sorry, you stated that incorrectly.

The Mueller report said it was clear that Putin himself directed a systematic and consistent effort to help Trump win the election. That is not debatable. What is debatable is what factor that played in the election versus Hillary being a weak candidate. My guess is that both were important factors.