Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”

Technology@kbin.social – 0 points – 1 years ago

Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”

A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

That's a whole lot of claims with little to no sources backing them up.

Which ones specifically? These are all fairly well known at this point. Let me ask, if I provide them, do you think it would influence you in any way?

All of them. If it's the truth I will see it.

But be warned. No tabloid or backwater new articles. Actual studies and statements.

I'll do that once I get to a computer. I forsee my effort being for nothing though.

Put up or shut up.

This comment was unnecessary. There's no need to be disrespectful, I'll be home in about 10 hours.

If you keep wasting everyone’s time prepare for more of it.

How am I wasting anyone's time? They're free to look up my claims at any time. Here's a tidbit if you're so inconvenienced:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner

Many people assume the rule traces to “some old studies” on the flu, which found droplets won’t travel further than six feet, Gottlieb said—though research has since shown that Covid-19 can be spread through aerosols, which have the potential to travel many times further than droplets.

You didn't claim otherwise to social distancing. And this has to do with further research giving us better understanding.

Especially with people knew with confidence at the time. With everything being hectic.

You are still wasting my and everyone's TIME.

I said that our government (US if that wasn't clear) wasn't suggesting solutions to the pandemic solely based on science in many cases. The social distancing mandate was an example of that. Criticism of this (the social distancing/masking solutions, etc.) was silenced and categorized as misinformation. So yes, I did say exactly that here:

"They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true?"

This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forced to resign), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.

I said that our government (US if that wasn't clear) wasn't suggesting solutions to the pandemic solely based on science in many cases.

No you didn't. Liar

And you haven't proven or shown that "They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew."

Whoever "they" are.

I literally copied and pasted my own comment; I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. "They" are the "Whitehouse" (via the FBI) that literally are what the trial of the post on which we're having this discussion were accused of; so yes, that's exactly what I said. They (the FBI/"Whitehouse") are on trial for influencing what should be sensored on social media as well as what information could be released during document requests to journalists. This included (based on the Twitter files) comments criticizing measures mandated by the government, including masking and social distancing requirements along with quarantine mandates.

My first article simply gave an example of one part of the mandates that weren't based on science with more stories to come once I can use an actual PC. It wasn't supposed to be my be-all-end-all source for everything I posited.

I copied what you said. You claimed otherwise and said something different before, even if you repasted your comment.

Now you are on to ANOTHER claim about the FBI censoring after specifying "they".

Still no proof or good sources from you.

WASTING TIME

4 more...