"what Zuckerberg has admitted to"

You don't even know what specifically Zuckerberg was allowing to be posted.

For all you know, it could've been information on how to kill people with horse paste.

Tell us, Bellringer: is putting out a video on how to inject bleach a matter of free speech?

What if someone posted a TikTok challenge on how long people could hold their breath under water?

Do the owners have ANY responsibility?

"I was told this never happened at all."

Good point. This is the first exception we've seen.

Why is it, do you think, the Trump administration was putting pressure on Zuckerberg?

My guess: the lynchpin is the content. If it was "don't believe A or B or C about Covid", that's one thing.

That said, "Here's how you inject horse paste" is another.

Which one do you think the Trump administration went after?

"Musk exposed the same thing at Twitter."

Musk never named a single decision the government forced his editorial board to override. If anything, the Twitter files proved exactly the opposite.

You're conflating political positions, with trying to keep people from killing others with horse paste.

FTA, regarding what was requested ...
"certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire"

So, based on his statement, it could be two incidences of comedy or satire, and a million posts with not just misinformation, but MAL-information.

So this is what it all boils down to:

Should the government pressure Facebook and others to take down malinformation?

FTW: malinformation is a "free speech lie" which will cause YOU harm, like "Injecting bleach is the best way to prevent Covid", or "The doctors are lying when they say too much ivermectin could kill you".

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with a government trying to get a handle on a pandemic, to try to squash every bit of malinformation they can.

" in full deflection mode."

What a riot. You've got a half dozen questions on this thread you haven't addressed.

Is this going to be the usual "run away from salient questions" we've all become so familiar with?

" Danforth loves left wing censorship "

Hey chickenschitt, stop deflecting and answer the questions.

As usual, you're afraid to actually address issues on the ground.

Are you in favor of instructions on how to megadose horse paste?

What would you, as the editor, decide? Is that free speech, or time for "left-wing censorship"?

Bellringer won't even say if he's FOR or AGAINST medical malinformation.

What a ------- coward.

" It is if it's because of pressure by the government"

You're basically saying Constitutional requirements for The General Welfare can NEVER override what the rando editorial board of Anarchy Now wants.

Let's say they want to publish the building drafts for every government building, highlighting weaknesses, should they be attacked.

Is that "free speech" in your book?

" You clowns clearly don't understand 1A."

Says the guy who can't even tell us where 1A ends.

To this point, he's OK with folks instructing other people how to properly inject bleach.

He's not only for misinformation, he's in favor of MALinformation.

"Or pro-lies and pro-hate-speech?"

Oh, definitely that.

Twitter is a cesspool compared to pre-Musk. 70% of my feed is bullschittt, like folks lying about the unrealized cap gains tax.

Guess what part they always leave out???

"Does anyone on the left have consistent guiding principles"

Fat talk from someone whose only "principle" is slurping whatever comes out of ANY Trumphole.

"So we went from it never happened. It's is racist right wing conspiracy theory to, okay, I guess it happened but it was a good thing."

No dumfuq, it went immediately to "if Jim Jordan had this information from the Meta workers he questioned under oath, he would've come out with it."

The fact he didn't, makes it seem more like Zuckerberg is trying to pull a fast one.

Only the Meta workers were under oath. Not Zuck, and not Gym.

The only other answer would be if Jordan knew, but was keeping the facts under wraps. Anybody with a below room temperature IQ around to believe that?

" Zuckerberg is saying the same actions were applied"

Until Zuck specifies exactly what content he's talking about, it's safe to assume it's directions on how to kill a parent with megadoses of ivermectin.

Alternately, Jordan could release the transcripts of the Meta employees.

Trouble is, NONE of them mentioned government pressure. Which is, of course, exactly why he WON'T release the transcripts.

And you'll slurp it up.

" your position is Zuckerberg is lying"

Neither he nor Musk have shown ANY censored content.

The Meta employees, meanwhile, were under oath.

And you've still never addressed the most basic question: Would it be okay to post an instructional video on how easy it is to inject bleach? Or do YOU censor that?

And what if you were responsible for the results if you left it up? Would that alter your behavior?

" Twitter Files have been out there for some time. ..."

And NO ONE, not even Musk, has detailed a single time the government overrode the editorial board.

You know ... THE SALIENT ACTION.

Also, until Zuck shows the content for which he (and only he, from the testimony of Meta employees) was pressured to censor, it makes sense to assume it's vile crap only Zuck might like.

"Based upon what is publicly available, the government applied all sorts of pressure and has plenty of regulatory powers over these tech companies."

Then, ask I've asked a dozen times before, SHOW ONE INSTANCE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT FORCED AN OVERRIDE OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD.

No matter how many times you pretend, if the editorial board says, "We agree those posts on eating Tide Pods are dangerous"...THAT'S NOT CENSORSHIP.

You're suggesting you've got a lot of examples. Knock yourself out.

"So... your current has links, then?"

No, he doesn't.

Same as his claim for "lawfare": he sees it everywhere against Trump, but can't ever point to ONE EXAMPLE, despite being asked dozens of times.

"EVERY time I supply links"

When TF have you every done it on this question, or the Twitter proof?

"try to attack the source."

A single piece of lawfare doesn't need a source. Just point to the indictment you or I could do without legal fear.

As for Twitter, just post proof of an editorial decision being overridden by the government. I've been asking these questions for MONTHS, and if you've EVER offered a link to proof, that's news to me.

"Overrode? Are your shoulders absolutely destroyed by moving those goalposts?"

Are you drunk? These are the EXACT SAME goalposts I've had since day one: Show me where the editorial board disagreed with the government, and the government overrode the editorial board's decision.

Same request since day one, and every time since. Why lie?

"Shortly after the 2020 election, Jack Dorsey admitted that Twitter was wrong to suppress the laptop story at the behest of the 'deep state' and whatnot. Musk exposed all sorts of government heavy-handedness with opening up to real journalists what was going on behind the scenes at Twitter during that period"

During that period. That was Trump's administration.

And NO ONE has stated THE GOVERNMENT made them change their minds. You're still talking in generalities and platitudes, with NO SPECIFICS of any censorship from the government except from TRUMP.

"I don't understand why you so strenuously support all of this"

I DON'T. I'm against censorship, even of misinformation. it's MALINFORMATION I'm talking about. Since I've delineated this a half-dozen times, my guess is you're too stupid to know the difference.

"You have a nice family. It would be a shame if anything happened to them."

So you had to make up a fake scenario to pretend stuff happened that didn't happen?

"THAT is how it works and it's been exposed every which way possible."

Basically, after all this, you're as big a moron as Mike Lindell. All this stuff, no specific proof, and your bottom line is "Trust me, bro."

The idea of plonking your lying ass gets more attractive every day. I used to think you were smart, but partisan. Now I know you're dumb as a post, you'll lie at the drop of a hat, and you constantly claim you've addressed issues when you've just danced around them.

Done.

I feel lighter already.

Somebody alert me if he ever directly answers a direct question.

"Somebody alert me if he ever directly answers a direct question."

Or gives an honest answer to any of my long-standing requests.

I won't be holding my breath.

" When a government is pressuring an organization to suppress humor and satire, you know it is there is something sinister afoot."

You actually fell for it?!?

Zuckerberg wasn't under oath, and none of the Meta employees mentioned governmental pressure when they were under oath.

Z was probably referring to one piece of humor, one satire, and a million posts on how to insert a UV light up yourself.

Thank god he's not an ingredient label; by law, you have to lead with your biggest ingredient.

There's a reason Zuck won't show examples: he'll immediately lose the argument when it turns out it's the horse paste aficionado who died of ivermectin poisoning.

"Fell for what? Zuckerberg's admission that he gave in to government pressure?"

Yeah, that.

If that were true, the Meta employees would've testified as much when they were under oath. And if that'd happened, Gym Jordan would've raced to the nearest camera.

Zuck wasn't under oath, so he lied.

You fell for it.

And why is no one (but me) screaming to see WHAT CONTENT are we talking about?

For argument's sake, let's say it was an instructional video on the best ways to inject yourself with bleach.

Is that free speech, knowing people WILL DIE if you leave it up?

Here's the test. Read this, and tell me if it's free speech, or time for a little government "censorship", aka providing for the general welfare.

The first lines of the link:

Danny Lemoi took a daily dose of veterinary-grade ivermectin and told his thousands of followers to give the drug to children.

"you'll never get bellringer to comment on this."

I wouldn't know if he did. Plonked his ass last night.

But you're right, Alex ... I've been asking the same questions with no direct answers since (seemingly) the dawn of time. Why would I expect him to actually tell the truth?

"you plonked Bellringer?"

And he plonked me.

I did it to him because of his lying, and he did it to me because of my truth.

""Someone please take my bullshht seriously!"
-BullBringer"

Something tells me I made the right choice.