Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 171

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

  1. #91
    If you use a platform that people who disagree with you dont use you cut off any openings and opportunities to win their support. It cuts off any political movement at the knees. Its the very motivation liberals have to ban and shadow ban and censor everything they can. Trump leaving twitter is a self ban.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Curious if this is true, @Brian4Liberty?

    The content here is moderated and there is a mission statement and guidelines that posters must follow.

    Moderators taking reasonable action to delete posts for which the site can be held liable.

    I'm not sure this site fits in the same category as facebook or twitter, I always assumed it did not.
    Would have to look into it.

    But this is a forum, and people post their own thoughts. There is no one moderating, editing or approving every post (at least since @TheTexan went AWOL from his duties).
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Gee, I'm sorry I so completely misinterpreted "neg". Must be short for something I wasn't expecting. Is that a National Energy Guarantee rep?
    Well i typically use neg as a general term when you say something negative while explicitly implying something else or the opposite. Its like sarcasm.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    If you use a platform that people who disagree with you dont use you cut off any openings and opportunities to win their support. It cuts off any political movement at the knees. Its the very motivation liberals have to ban and shadow ban and censor everything they can. Trump leaving twitter is a self ban.
    I'd guess that Trump likes Twitter since he can respond to the media and celebrities on that platform. The same reason many people stay there. Twitter has the inertia right now.

    As I've said before, considering that politicians and media give out their Twitter addresses, the case could be made that Twitter is somewhat a public utility, like a telephone.

    Could a Congressman give out their telephone number, and then the telephone company could decide who can actually call that number, or even have a phone?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Why do they get protections other corporations dont?
    What protections? The freedom to edit Trump's posts? It's their business they can do as they choose with it. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't use it.

    This is seriously Libertarian 101.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I'd guess that Trump likes Twitter since he can respond to the media and celebrities on that platform. The same reason many people stay there. Twitter has the inertia right now.

    As I've said before, considering that politicians and media give out their Twitter addresses, the case could be made that Twitter is somewhat a public utility, like a telephone.

    Could a Congressman give out their telephone number, and then the telephone company could decide who can actually call that number, or even have a phone?
    It was actually the reason why i quit lurking. Rand Paul was trying to build a bipartisan movement and shills from other campaigns were brigading the forums and basically saying the only good liberal is a dead liberal. I argued that lots of people never change political parties but there are a lot of people who change political parties. Its a divide and conquer technique. Republicans and democrats get their own social media and fight over stuff we disagree with but no potential for ideas to become bipartisan.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I'd guess that Trump likes Twitter since he can respond to the media and celebrities on that platform. The same reason many people stay there. Twitter has the inertia right now.

    As I've said before, considering that politicians and media give out their Twitter addresses, the case could be made that Twitter is somewhat a public utility, like a telephone.

    Could a Congressman give out their telephone number, and then the telephone company could decide who can actually call that number, or even have a phone?
    If Trump feels that strongly he should fund his own alternative to twitter.

    Twitter is a private corporation, not a government entity.

    I would say more of a case could be made for a publicly funded alternative to Twitter than more government regulation of business.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    What protections? The freedom to edit Trump's posts? It's their business they can do as they choose with it. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't use it.

    This is seriously Libertarian 101.
    Libertarianism inside of our regulated corportocracy?? Is that some sort of a Rorschach thing? Do you see any libertarianism in any other corportocracies like China or Russia?

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    If Trump feels that strongly he should fund his own alternative to twitter.

    Twitter is a private corporation, not a government entity.

    I would say more of a case could be made for a publicly funded alternative to Twitter than more government regulation of business.
    They don't get to be a publisher with platform immunity.
    The law should be enforced.
    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

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    If Trump feels that strongly he should fund his own alternative to twitter.

    Twitter is a private corporation, not a government entity.

    I would say more of a case could be made for a publicly funded alternative to Twitter than more government regulation of business.
    Self ban or shut up???

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    I would say more of a case could be made for a publicly funded alternative to Twitter than more government regulation of business.
    Facebook was funded by the CIA, and Twitter may have been as well, but neither allows First Amendment unfettered political speech. Is Fedbook an argument for public funding?
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    He isn't, he's enforcing the law.
    You can't be a publisher and a platform.
    Read the law:

    47 USC §230

    (a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:

    (1)The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
    (2)These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
    (3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
    (4)The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
    (5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

    (b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—

    (1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
    (2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
    (3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
    (4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
    (5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

    (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

    (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    (2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

    (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
    (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

    (d)Obligations of interactive computer service

    A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

    (e)Effect on other laws

    (1)No effect on criminal law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

    (2)No effect on intellectual property law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

    (3)State law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

    (4)No effect on communications privacy law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

    (5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
    (A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
    (B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
    (C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.

    (f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:

    (1)Internet
    The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

    (2)Interactive computer service
    The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

    (3)Information content provider
    The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

    (4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
    (A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
    (B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
    (C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
    Where does the statute require that a social platform like Twitter or Facebook must publish material it believes to be false (e.g., Alex Jones' claim that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged)? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    Where does it say that a platform loses its liability immunity and ceases to be an "interactive computer service" if it posts a link to a third-party's site that contradicts something someone posts on the platform? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    The only thing Trump is seeking to enforce is his inflated sense of his own authority.

    Edit: Changed "ego" to "authority". Trump's ego is objectively inflated -- it's Yuge! His authority is inflated only in his own mind.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 05-28-2020 at 05:05 PM.
    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

  15. #103

  16. #104
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,504
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Pay attention to what? What specific details did you notice that i didnt since i must be part of the general population? What are you specifically upset about?
    I am not upset at all. I just have observed that most people don't pay attention to issues the way that many of us here do. It just seems silly to me to expect that Trump will lose votes in November for some executive order in May. Hell 2 weeks from now people will have moved on to other issues and this will be left in the dust regardless of whether one is for or against said executive order.


    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    When it is the lock down, economy and job loss effecting them they pay attention. Don't be fooled by the wealthy and secure that have time to post or that are paid to post on social media.

    It is as if the news media and politicians have no clue what is going on right now in this country. Combined with police abuse riots this can turn nationally bad quickly.
    When I read your comment it just reminded me of people saying 4 years ago that he didn't really want to win. You seem to think that his base will see this as a betrayal and I disagree. His base will probably see this as delivering an ass whooping to leftist social media, regardless of reality.

    Trump has a rock solid base. It is him against the world don't cha know? He is battling the fake newspapers, the liars on TV, the biased social media companies, the deep state, the Democrats and even some Republicans. Perception is Reality. Trump is battling all of these forces and his base is with him through thick and thin. The people have a champion smashing the face of their leftist enemies and they love it.



    Meanwhile the Democrats have a candidate with Frontotemporal Dementia crapping his pants on TV while insulting black people...
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    The biggest problem with social media is that its hijacked by advertisements pretending to be content. Most of the actual content was carved out to advertise because its way more profitable. The social medias speech isnt even theirs its a $#@!ing con. Its just a dnc puppet show in a lot of cases.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Read the law:



    Where does the statute require that a social platform like Twitter or Facebook must publish material it believes to be false (e.g., Alex Jones' claim that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged)? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    Where does it say that a platform loses its liability immunity and ceases to be an "interactive computer service" if it posts a link to a third-party's site that contradicts something someone posts on the platform? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    The only thing Trump is seeking to enforce is his inflated sense of his own authority.

    Edit: Changed "ego" to "authority". Trump's ego is objectively inflated -- it's Yuge! His authority is inflated only in his own mind.
    You conveniently failed to mention the part where it says "any action voluntarily taken in good faith". Trump is arguing that Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc are not acting in good faith at all, and therefore their actions cannot be protected.
    Last edited by revgen; 05-28-2020 at 06:53 PM.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Read the law:



    Where does the statute require that a social platform like Twitter or Facebook must publish material it believes to be false (e.g., Alex Jones' claim that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged)? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    Where does it say that a platform loses its liability immunity and ceases to be an "interactive computer service" if it posts a link to a third-party's site that contradicts something someone posts on the platform? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    The only thing Trump is seeking to enforce is his inflated sense of his own authority.

    Edit: Changed "ego" to "authority". Trump's ego is objectively inflated -- it's Yuge! His authority is inflated only in his own mind.
    Looks to be another scam. Supporters that don't read it will think it has teeth and another win for them, makes them feel good and solidifies Trump's support.

    Even hollow I thought maybe they will back off the censorship a bit but I got banned from Reddit today by a moderator that is a cop in real life for my posts about police abuse. I asked why specifically I was banned. The response was an insult by the moderator in a PM and my ability to respond back was blocked. With a combination of real abuse from police I received in life and this, it really is like living in a Chinese style police state.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Read the law:



    Where does the statute require that a social platform like Twitter or Facebook must publish material it believes to be false (e.g., Alex Jones' claim that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged)? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    Where does it say that a platform loses its liability immunity and ceases to be an "interactive computer service" if it posts a link to a third-party's site that contradicts something someone posts on the platform? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    The only thing Trump is seeking to enforce is his inflated sense of his own authority.

    Edit: Changed "ego" to "authority". Trump's ego is objectively inflated -- it's Yuge! His authority is inflated only in his own mind.
    Yep.

    As I said on an earlier post, how convenient that he did this right after Twitter flagged him. If it had been Biden's tweet flagged, Trump would have been praising the $#@! outta Twitter.
    There is no spoon.

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    You conveniently failed to mention the part where it says "any action voluntarily taken in good faith". Trump is arguing that Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc are not acting in good faith at all, and therefore their actions cannot be protected.
    You mean like the leaked recordings and communications from social media companies that completely blamed Trump winning the elections on lack of censorship from companies like google and then google censored conservatives emails in the next elections and the democrats won the house? Is that acting in good faith? Before they did that conservatives were bypassing social media and msm censorship by going through email and were winning elections.

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Read the law:



    Where does the statute require that a social platform like Twitter or Facebook must publish material it believes to be false (e.g., Alex Jones' claim that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged)? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    Where does it say that a platform loses its liability immunity and ceases to be an "interactive computer service" if it posts a link to a third-party's site that contradicts something someone posts on the platform? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    The only thing Trump is seeking to enforce is his inflated sense of his own authority.

    Edit: Changed "ego" to "authority". Trump's ego is objectively inflated -- it's Yuge! His authority is inflated only in his own mind.
    (2)Interactive computer service
    The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

    (3)Information content provider
    The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

    They have become content providers not interactive computer services.

    Definitions are important, always read the definitions.
    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

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    Looks to be another scam. Supporters that don't read it will think it has teeth and another win for them, makes them feel good and solidifies Trump's support.

    Even hollow I thought maybe they will back off the censorship a bit but I got banned from Reddit today by a moderator that is a cop in real life for my posts about police abuse. I asked why specifically I was banned. The response was an insult by the moderator in a PM and my ability to respond back was blocked. With a combination of real abuse from police I received in life and this, it really is like living in a Chinese style police state.
    It will take time before any effect appears in day to day use of the internet.
    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

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    You mean like the leaked recordings and communications from social media companies that completely blamed Trump winning the elections on lack of censorship from companies like google and then google censored conservatives emails in the next elections and the democrats won the house? Is that acting in good faith? Before they did that conservatives were bypassing social media and msm censorship by going through email and were winning elections.
    The junk mailing of emails is just the tip of the iceberg.

    If James O'Keefe is correct, next month is going to be interesting.





  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    The junk mailing of emails is just the tip of the iceberg.

    If James O'Keefe is correct, next month is going to be interesting.


    It wasnt just being junked the spam filters were rigged so emails were undeliverable. They rigged the spam filter algorithms intentionally so emails wouldnt even reach the server of the recipient.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Read the law:



    Where does the statute require that a social platform like Twitter or Facebook must publish material it believes to be false (e.g., Alex Jones' claim that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged)? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    Where does it say that a platform loses its liability immunity and ceases to be an "interactive computer service" if it posts a link to a third-party's site that contradicts something someone posts on the platform? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

    The only thing Trump is seeking to enforce is his inflated sense of his own authority.

    Edit: Changed "ego" to "authority". Trump's ego is objectively inflated -- it's Yuge! His authority is inflated only in his own mind.

    This is a bit more in depth at 10:10, so you can have a better understanding of the law.

    Last edited by dannno; 05-28-2020 at 10:55 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It will take time before any effect appears in day to day use of the internet.
    Will it take more or less time than the investigations against the Obama administration, the pullout from Syria, the mass arrests, or literally any of the other things that you say will take time?
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    What are you talking about?

    You don't seem to understand the basic premise here.

    There are two kinds of websites. One kind of website assumes editorial control, and is ALREADY liable for content posted - I.e. infowars, CNN, Fox News and, I assumed, this website. Therefore nothing will change for them, because that is already how it is.

    The second kind of website is like twitter or facebook - they have been allowed to skirt the liability laws because they claim they don't have editorial control over the content of their site. The whole idea is that since they are now choosing to assume editorial control over their content, they should already be held liable, based on the current laws - I'm not saying that is how it should be, just that is how current laws seem to be put together.

    To me, this EO seems like it pretty much just defines the law as it already is, by making clear that since these sites are assuming editorial control over their content they would be held liable for what is posted there.. just like, I presume this website would be. So it would put them on equal footing with this website, or infowars, etc.

    There may even be something in the EO that would allow these websites to continue to operate liability free - if only they decided to reverse course and not exercise editorial control over the site. It could very well be that this EO is simply a directive to follow the current laws that are already on the books.
    this ^

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Who gave the Narcissist-in-Chief the authority to rewrite legislation?
    Sorry, you have it backwards. It's already been rewritten by interpretation.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Last I checked Facebook and Twitter were private corporations.
    Exactly, and they should be held to the same legal standards as any other company. Why do you think the select few should have a competitive advantage over all their competition? These are government granted monopolies made possible only by the force of the federal government.

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Exactly.

    And, funny how Trump did this after Twitter had tagged his last post. If it had been Biden's post, Trump would be celebrating & calling Twitter YUGELY wonderful.
    lol, sure, they wrote this EO in one night



    this has been in the works for quite some time now

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    lol, sure, they wrote this EO in one night



    this has been in the works for quite some time now
    Yep, it was over a year ago when they started a website compiling grievances toward social media companies.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


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
  •