Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 175 of 175

Thread: Trump to end liability protections for "social media outlets" with Executive Order

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Calls for violence and a host of other things.
    Watch.
    You mean like Trump's "When the looting starts the shooting starts"?

    There are federal statutes criminalizing the solicitation to commit violent crimes and inciting a riot (18 USC §§ 373 and 2101), and that type of conduct is thus already excluded from Section 230's immunity. You have consequently failed to back up your claim that the DOJ would be able to enforce the law because of the EO. It already has that power.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by parocks View Post
    "The EO is nothing more than political posturing by Trump."

    Nah, it's huge. The ramifications are huge.
    They are huge only if (a) the administrative agencies come up with severely restrictive regulations that survive the next election, and (b) if the courts defer to those regulations.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You mean like Trump's "When the looting starts the shooting starts"?

    There are federal statutes criminalizing the solicitation to commit violent crimes and inciting a riot (18 USC §§ 373 and 2101), and that type of conduct is thus already excluded from Section 230's immunity. You have consequently failed to back up your claim that the DOJ would be able to enforce the law because of the EO. It already has that power.
    That is a warning not a call for violence, not only will Law Enforcement be justified in shooting but we have already seen both criminals and business owners start shooting.

    Don't start looting unless you want to see violence.

    You will see when the prosecution starts, I'm not a legal expert but I know that they can now be held accountable for things they couldn't be held accountable for if they had remained platforms.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You will see when the prosecution starts, I'm not a legal expert but I know that they can now be held accountable for things they couldn't be held accountable for if they had remained platforms.
    You are not only not a legal expert, you are absolutely clueless about the law. But that doesn't prevent you from pontificating about it as if you had the faintest inkling about what the real issue is. You have failed miserably to show how the DOJ can "enforce the law" due to the EO as you previously claimed. But instead of admitting you didn't know what you were talking about, you change the subject to the real issue: the ability of non-governmental parties to sue platforms owing to their posting of allegedly defamatory material from other parties. That, and not your pathetic "the DOJ can now enforce the law due to the Executive Order" is the real consequence of the loss of the Section 230 immunity.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  7. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You are not only not a legal expert, you are absolutely clueless about the law. But that doesn't prevent you from pontificating about it as if you had the faintest inkling about what the real issue is. You have failed miserably to show how the DOJ can "enforce the law" due to the EO as you previously claimed. But instead of admitting you didn't know what you were talking about, you change the subject to the real issue: the ability of non-governmental parties to sue platforms owing to their posting of allegedly defamatory material from other parties. That, and not your pathetic "the DOJ can now enforce the law due to the Executive Order" is the real consequence of the loss of the Section 230 immunity.
    I didn't change the subject, the DoJ will be prosecuting them.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I didn't change the subject, the DoJ will be prosecuting them.
    For what? Cite the law that the DOJ can't prosecute a platform for violating now but will be able to do so if a platform loses its Section 230 immunity.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  9. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    For what? Cite the law that the DOJ can't prosecute a platform for violating now but will be able to do so if a platform loses its Section 230 immunity.
    Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  10. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
    I'm not. He avoids the obvious like the plague.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  11. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    It could also mean that social media outlets would have a newly created justification to censor anyone linking to your site on FB. "We support your speech but we don't want to be sued!" *wink nod*

    eta: Thinking on this a bit more, my last sentence will probably be the most common usage of this new censorship agenda, with actual suits/prosecutions being reserved only for the most egregious "offenders" aka the "made examples of" offenders. The creation of a new justification for the main social media outlets to censor anything not agenda-compliant. After this is passed, watch for a high profile "example" like Alex Jones being sued that can be splashed across headlines everywhere as a tool to scare the small website operators.
    I hate to tell you that this is already being done! You could argue that Twitter, Facebook and Youtube have more "freedom" to do so, without the threat of being sued (while most of the others are simply to "small" to be dangerous)...

    I have “my” own sub forum on a little-known forum: https://3169.createaforum.com/firestarter-on-fire/

    To give the threads some exposure, the owner/administrator of the site (Patrick Jane) posts links on Facebook and Twitter.

    Patrick Jane has posted that since around 27 May he can't tweet links to some threads with “somewhat controversial topics” (including some of mine).
    He later informed me that he can “trick” Twitter, by changing the title a “little”…
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

    Donald Trump, another puppet controlled by the international elite: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...=1038&start=60

  12. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    I hate to tell you that this is already being done! You could argue that Twitter, Facebook and Youtube have more "freedom" to do so, without the threat of being sued (while most of the others are simply to "small" to be dangerous)...

    I have “my” own sub forum on a little-known forum: https://3169.createaforum.com/firestarter-on-fire/

    To give the threads some exposure, the owner/administrator of the site (Patrick Jane) posts links on Facebook and Twitter.

    Patrick Jane has posted that since around 27 May he can't tweet links to some threads with “somewhat controversial topics” (including some of mine).
    He later informed me that he can “trick” Twitter, by changing the title a “little”…
    As we're now seeing, the labeling of domestic groups as "terrorist" has started. The existing censorship is there already, yes, but with the weight/force of government now behind the labeling of activities and speech as "terrorist", it enables TPTB to label groups and associated speech as "terrorist content" and block it via dictates from the FCC. Anti-vax? Terrorist. FB/Twitter post blocked. Run a website exposing deeper agendas or a forum where such things are discussed? Terrorist. Posts blocked and how would you like a SPLC lawsuit against your website for supporting terrorism, also? Etc.

    It's the logical censorship progression when speech is largely concentrated to a few platforms and government starts declaring groups as terrorist (and thereby related speech).


    Note that I started this thread even before the Floyd stuff emerged into protests, riots and looting. Some have speculated that the rioting is staged for the purpose of pre-positioning military for vaccine distribution, which Trump already declared would be administered via military supply lines. Don't know if accurate or not but the timing fits.
    Last edited by devil21; 06-02-2020 at 11:02 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by parocks View Post
    RPF is liable and has been liable.

    And Twitter Facebook and Youtube should be too. Unless they stop acting like publishers.

    Twitter Facebook and Youtube should not be able to have it both ways.

    They're either a platform, which doesn't censor and doesn't get sued for defamation or they're a publisher which can censor and can get sued for defamation.

    Twitter Facebook and Youtube want to act like Publishers (censorship, editorial content) at the same time as being regulated like a Platform (no responsibility to police defamation). Those are the bad guys, and they're currently able to have it both ways.

    How about this set of rules for them? They can be sued for defamation and they can't censor political content.
    There's no good reason to draw the lines that crisply: i.e. between full editorial control and none at all. There are degrees of editorial control. Facebook doing minimal, after-the-fact, largely automated editing is radically different from a newspaper editor having absolute control over every word before publication.

    It's as great as the difference between a shooter and the guy who sold him the gun; we don't hold the latter liable for the shooting just because he sold the gun to the shooter, nor because he tried, unsuccessfully, to weed out potentially dangerous customers, nor certainly because he "discriminated" against certain customers for ideological or any other reasons.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  15. #162
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There's no good reason to draw the lines that crisply: i.e. between full editorial control and none at all. There are degrees of editorial control. Facebook doing minimal, after-the-fact, largely automated editing is radically different from a newspaper editor having absolute control over every word before publication.

    It's as great as the difference between a shooter and the guy who sold him the gun; we don't hold the latter liable for the shooting just because he sold the gun to the shooter, nor because he tried, unsuccessfully, to weed out potentially dangerous customers, nor certainly because he "discriminated" against certain customers for ideological or any other reasons.
    It's as different as someone who commits one murder instead of hundreds.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #164
    The final Executive Order is different from the draft — and even more troubling, including the following policy proposals:
    Websites of any size should lose all Section 230 protections if they don’t follow their terms of service or provide sufficient notice when removing content
    The Attorney General should judge whether any websites receiving advertising money from the government are “problematic vehicles for government speech” because of “viewpoint discrimination”
    The Federal Trade Commission should investigate websites for deceptive advertising based on their terms of service
    As the EO is aimed at “any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine”, it will probably be used against the small forums that go “too” far in allowing “free speech”, which is the opposite as what President Donald claims (protecting free speech).

    It will take another 60 days before the Secretary of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) with Attorney General (Bill Barr) will ask the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose regulations.
    Congress can still veto this proposal and a court could also strike it down:
    https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/29/2...-analysis-bias
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

    Donald Trump, another puppet controlled by the international elite: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...=1038&start=60

  18. #165
    Hawley, Rubio, Cotton and Braun leading the charge and Meghan McCain praising the new "anti-censorship" bill? Must be a great bill for advocates of speech! No ulterior motives, for sure.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...n-230-rollback
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  19. #166
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  20. #167
    This appears to be THE main part of the bill (new legislation to be entered into Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934)...
    ‘’(3) GOOD FAITH.—For the purposes of this subsection, a provider of an interactive computer service—
    ‘‘(A) acts in good faith if the provider acts with an honest belief and purpose, observes fair dealing standards, and acts without fraudulent intent; and

    ‘‘(B) does not act in good faith if the provider takes an action that includes—
    ‘‘(i) the intentionally selective enforcement of the terms of service of the interactive computer service, including the intentionally selective enforcement of policies of the provider relating to restricting access to or availability of material;
    ‘‘(ii) enforcing the terms of service of the interactive computer service, including enforcing policies of the provider to restrict access to or availability of material, against a user by employing an algorithm that selectively enforces those terms, if the provider knows, or acts in reckless disregard of the fact, that the algorithm selectively enforces those terms;

    ‘‘(iii) the intentional failure to honor a public or private promise made by, or on 3 behalf of, the provider; or
    ‘‘(iv) any other intentional action taken by the provider without an honest belief and purpose, without observing fair dealing standards, or with fraudulent intent.’’;
    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chor...ritans_Act.pdf


    So now it’s up to the crooked courts to decide when an action is “selectively”…
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

    Donald Trump, another puppet controlled by the international elite: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...=1038&start=60

  21. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    This appears to be THE main part of the bill (new legislation to be entered into Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934)...
    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chor...ritans_Act.pdf


    So now it’s up to the crooked courts to decide when an action is “selectively”…
    And since the penalty is a whopping $5000, few, if any, will actually sue for violations. That's literally such a small amount that it would fall under small claims court in my state. Only the most repeated and egregious documented examples of repeat censorship "in bad faith" would make a suit viable.

    As you point out, the word "selective" is the operative word of the entire statute. Want to avoid violation? Don't be selective. Just censor a giant swath of content (anti-vax, agenda 2030, etc) and declare that it is in good faith and is not selective. Anytime Rubio and Cotton have their fingerprints on a bill, it's not for the people's benefit.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    And since the penalty is a whopping $5000, few, if any, will actually sue for violations. That's literally such a small amount that it would fall under small claims court in my state. Only the most repeated and egregious documented examples of repeat censorship "in bad faith" would make a suit viable.
    How much would it cost to hire an attorney to take your case?!?


    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    As you point out, the word "selective" is the operative word of the entire statute. Want to avoid violation? Don't be selective. Just censor a giant swath of content (anti-vax, agenda 2030, etc) and declare that it is in good faith and is not selective.
    If you look at it like this, this would benefit the big platforms (like Youtube, Google and Facebook)...


    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Anytime Rubio and Cotton have their fingerprints on a bill, it's not for the people's benefit.
    I am still not convinced that THIS is the most important objective of the EO though...
    It could be that THIS was the important part (that nobody in our wonderful media is paying attention to). Very important in an election year?!?
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter
    The Attorney General should judge whether any websites receiving advertising money from the government are “problematic vehicles for government speech” because of “viewpoint discrimination”
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

    Donald Trump, another puppet controlled by the international elite: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...=1038&start=60

  24. #170
    I'm tired of the same private company excuse over and over again. Your phone company doesn't have a right to ban you from texting/saying things the loony left don't like, why should Twitter? As a matter of fact, Twitter will let outright calls of violence from the left stay up.
    A savage barbaric tribal society where thugs parade the streets and illegally assault and murder innocent civilians, yeah that is the alternative to having police. Oh wait, that is the police

    We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
    - Edward R. Murrow

    ...I think we have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws, because non-cooperation with evil is as much as a moral obligation as cooperation with good. - MLK Jr.

    How to trigger a liberal: "I didn't get vaccinated."

  25. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    How much would it cost to hire an attorney to take your case?!?



    If you look at it like this, this would benefit the big platforms (like Youtube, Google and Facebook)...



    I am still not convinced that THIS is the most important objective of the EO though...
    It could be that THIS was the important part (that nobody in our wonderful media is paying attention to). Very important in an election year?!?
    Elections come and go. Censorship, once enacted, sticks around much longer than a 4 year President.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  26. #172
    This is surfacing again. Conveniently, right as an ex-YT moderator files a lawsuit over mental trauma for being exposed to graphic content and "fringe conspiracy theories" on the platform.


    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/23/doj-...ty-shield.html

    The [Trump admin] draft legislation, which would need to be passed by Congress, focuses on two areas of reform. First, it aims to narrow the criteria online platforms must meet to earn the liability protections granted by Section 230. Second, it would carve out the statute’s immunity for certain cases, like offenses involving child sexual abuse.
    ..............
    The DOJ’s proposed reforms echo some legislation that has already been introduced by lawmakers. For example, it narrows the standard tech companies must follow in order to remove content that is considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent,” from a subjective one to that of an “objectively reasonable belief.” A bill introduced by three powerful Republicans earlier this month includes the same standard and similarly narrows the types of content that platforms could be protected for removing, like content promoting self-harm or terrorism.

    The proposal also includes a “Bad Samaritan” carve-out that would explicitly deny immunity to platforms that purposefully fail to take action on content that violates federal criminal law. Under the proposal, platforms could be held liable if they fail to quickly remove or suppress posts that would violate federal criminal law or fail to report illegal material to law enforcement when required.
    Last edited by devil21; 09-23-2020 at 09:32 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  27. #173
    As William Barr has asked Congress to approve censoring online platforms; President Donald warned he is: "watching them very closely during this election cycle.

    At the urging of the radical left, these platforms have become intolerant of diverse political views and abusive toward their own users
    ": https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/91609...s-legal-shield


    As I understand the following section, the DoJ under the new “protecting free speech” proposal can simply send “notice” to some internet platform, citing some legal BS, and then expect the platform to immediately remove contents (small outlets don’t have a legal team to understand the legal implications)...
    c. Case-Specific Carve-outs for Actual Knowledge or Court Judgments. Third, the Department supports reforms to make clear that Section 230 immunity does not apply in a specific case where a platform had actual knowledge or notice that the third party content at issue violated federal criminal law or where the platform was provided with a court judgment that content is unlawful in any respect.
    https://www.justice.gov/ag/departmen...cency-act-1996


    Let’s call that “protecting free speech” that sounds soo much better than censoring dissident voices in the last 6 weeks before the election!
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

    Donald Trump, another puppet controlled by the international elite: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...=1038&start=60

  28. #174
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Andrew Torba, CEO of Gab has a schizophrenic view of this.

    For a long time, he constantly chastised the Trump administration for not "doing something" about big tech censorship.

    But then when Trump wanted to enforce Section 230, Torba came out against it.

    Gab is growing so fast right now that Torba realizes four years is enough time for the free market to work, especially the free market of ideas on the internet.

    The underground internet is exploding now. If you read the most popular tweets, by comment 9 or 10, they are only getting one or two likes, maybe a repost. Twitter is failing, Facebook is failing.

    After the election, leftists will find and start to flood the underground internet, just like myspace migrated to facebook after being bought by Fox. George Bush was so popularly hated by then, the news spread like wildfire, and within two years, myspace was dust in the wind.

  29. #175
    In line with Donald’s Executive Order - in a nice Orwellian twist - “protecting free speech” on online platforms…
    Facebook has recently banned some “politically incorrect” topics.

    Most importantly Facebook has banned ads that delegitimise the results of the U.S. election (this year’s but also in the past and future).

    Facebook has banned ads that discourage people from getting vaccines:
    If an ad that advocates for/against legislation or government policies explicitly discourages a vaccine, it will be rejected.
    That includes portraying vaccines as useless, ineffective, unsafe or unhealthy, describing the diseases vaccines are created for as harmless, or the ingredients in vaccines as harmful or deadly.
    Facebook is working with the World Health Organization and UNICEF “on public health messaging campaigns to increase immunization rates”.
    Facebook is banning groups that give health advice.

    Facebook has also banned denying the Holocaust: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/13/face...i-vax-ads.html
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

    Donald Trump, another puppet controlled by the international elite: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...=1038&start=60

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2017, 01:27 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2014, 04:54 PM
  3. Obama Threatens "Executive Order" on GUNS
    By presence in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 10:51 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 06:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •