Media Bias

[Cunt]

Aye, Twitter is now owned by a billionaire and the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia - bastions of free speech both.

- Saudi Arabia: Man Sentenced to Death for Tweets - Saudi woman given 34-year prison sentence for using Twitter

But at least they're owning the libs now, eh?

At least they publicized the US intelligence interference in their moderation.

And they aren't doing great on free speech, but it isn't hard to do MUCH better than the lefty governments and social media giants in general.

Taylor Lorentz is now complaining about threads censoring her lol
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/1 ... ins-about/

William Shakespeare meant exactly this when he wrote, “Hoist with his own petard.”

Cry bully and far-left reporter Taylor Lorenz has recently voiced her frustrations about what many conservatives have experienced for many years: being shadowbanned on social media.

She's the jackass who doxxed the owner of the 'libsoftiktok' account. I guess she didn't like that someone was reposting the BLINDINGLY STUPID stuff posted by the vigorously left-of-stupid. It's nice to see her growing. There is a chance she'll learn the value of freedom of speech.

I doubt it, but why not be hopeful?

[Brian Peacock]

Aye, Twitter is now owned by a billionaire and the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia - bastions of free speech both.

- Saudi Arabia: Man Sentenced to Death for Tweets - Saudi woman given 34-year prison sentence for using Twitter

But at least they're owning the libs now, eh?

At least they publicized the US intelligence interference in their moderation.

Wooosh!

[Cunt]

Geez, wouldn't it be better if there WAS a way to have free speech somewhere, rather than letting various corporations, governments and unnamed billionaires?

Or do you prefer censorship?

[Brian Peacock]

What's your point?

[Cunt]

What's your point?

That free speech is more important than everyone's feelings. I asked if you thought it was better to have (ugly, disagreeable, dangerous) free speech or censorship by various orgs.



I know that when the left is in charge of things, they see no reason not to ban 'hatespeech' (as they define it), or other dangers to public health.

You get that those tools will be in the opposing parties hands, right?

[Brian Peacock]

What's your point?

That free speech is more important than everyone's feelings.

Unless you tweet in Saudi Arabia.

[Cunt]

What's your point?

That free speech is more important than everyone's feelings.

Unless you tweet in Saudi Arabia.

I still don't know if you prefer free speech or censorship, but it sounds like free expression of ideas isn't high on your priority list.

My guess is that because of that, you don't hear ideas contrary to the gatekeepers.

[Brian Peacock]

What are you talking about? Define 'free speech'.

[Cunt]

What are you talking about? Define 'free speech'.

A presidential candidate should not have his material censored by the government he is trying to replace.

Or are you good with that, because the people on top must be right to do so?

[Brian Peacock]

A president should not incite a riot to make a political point. Or are you OK with that?

[Cunt]

You must have forgotten to answer.

But this guy didn't do that. You may have been making assumptions. Answer, then we can move forward. Or don't.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's all a matter of perspective. If you find Trump simpatico, then whatever trouble he gets himself into is obviously somebody else's doing. That is the essential doctrine of Trumpism.

The horrible, completely 'unfair and biased' judge claims to be concerned for the safety of his staff, the prosecutors, and the witnesses.

Not without reason: they've been receiving a number of death threats. The judge is aware of incidents in which some devoted Trump follower has followed through by attacking or attempting to attack the subjects of Trump's ire. As judges do fairly regularly when dealing with troublesome defendants he has ordered that Trump can't make pointedly prejudicial comments about staff, prosecutors, and witnesses.

We all know that nasty comments are Trump's stock in trade. Restricting (even in such a very specific way) his ability to make such comments is undeniably hitting him where it hurts. Anything that hurts the Baron of Grift is necessarily a great injustice. His constitutionally protected free speech is being interfered with. While he's trying to get into the White House again!

All the Trumpist has to do is listen to Trump: The judge is obviously one of those Trump Derangement Syndrome people and Trumpists can connect the dots. It's only through the mainstream media that we even know about the death threats. The Trumpist knows that they're in on it and they regularly lie to hurt Trump. The uniparty/Deep State/communists are being outrageously unfair to Trump, and those who've been taken in by mainstream media refuse to see it.

On the other hand, for those who understand that even Trump is not above the law, it's obvious that he's doing what he reliably does, which is act as if the laws don't apply to him.

Within a few months of Biden putting Merrick Garland in as Attorney General plenty of those on the left began grousing about how long it was taking Garland to do something like appoint a special counsel to address Trump's attempt to stay in office after losing the election. Personally, I agree with that sentiment. I think Garland was much too slow to act--he should have got in a special counsel within a year of taking charge of the Department of Justice. I don't know why waited but he's known for being a cautious, deliberative type. Still, waiting as long as he did adds a bit of extra angst to the Trumpist narrative. Of course Trump would have made the same claims of political persecution regardless of timing and the Trumpist faithful would have sung from the same sheet. Garland's timing may help some fence-sitters (there must be a few) swing to Trump. It's not optimal, in my opinion.

Then again, I'm basing my opinion on my knowledge of Trump's behavior and a passing familiarity with the criminal justice system as well as reporting from various sources. All of that is irrelevant and/or suspect as far as the Trumpists are concerned.

[Joe]

I remember Garland saying this would take time because they were starting with the smaller cases and working their way up to the big offenders. As I understand it, that's not unusual. The small cases build evidence, defendents take plea deals in exchange for testimony, and make stronger cases against the bosses. Giving the political ramifications, he wants to have an ironclad case.

Of course, Trump is banking on his ability to delay the prosecutions until after the election. If he can get elected, he becomes immune from federal indictment and criminal prosecution while in office. Then he can turn his allies in the Georgia and federal legislatures, plus the power of the Presidency, on the Georgia case and quash it in some way.

As you say, Trumps supporters will be fine with that because it owns the libs.

[Tero]

I was thinking about all those people who don't follow news much but still dominate the polls.

When they hear fake news from Fox, what would convince them that the news from the left (MSNBC) is real and not the same made up shit?

[Brian Peacock]

They might not watch news broadcasts/media, but the news is all around us all, all the time, on social media, at work, in the family, normal social interactions at the grocery store, etc etc. So the overall picture isn't so much about what stories are true or convincing for this-or-that (very loosely defined) group, but which ones people relate to in their own lives and which ones reflect or challenge their values and perspective on things.