In the shift of the left against free speech principles, there is no figure more actively or openly pushing for censorship than Hillary Clinton. Now, reports indicate that Clinton has unleashed her allies in the corporate world to coerce Musk to restore censorship policies or face bankruptcy. The effort of the Clinton-linked “Accountable Tech” reveals the level of panic in Democratic circles that free speech could be restored on one social media platform. The group was open about how losing control over Twitter could result in a loss of control over social media generally. For Clinton, it is an “all-hands on deck” call for censorship. She previously called upon foreign governments to crackdown on the free speech of Americans on Twitter.
We have been discussing how Clinton and others have called on foreign countries to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. It seems that, after years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democratic leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship.
Accountable Tech led an effort to send a letter to top Twitter advertisers to force Musk to accept “non-negotiable” requirements for censorship.
General Motors was one of the first to pull its advertising funds to stop free speech restoration on the site.
Of course, the company had no problem with supporting Twitter when it was running one of the largest censorship systems in history — or supporting TikTok (which is Chinese owned and has been denounced for state control and access to data). Twitter has been denounced for years for its bias against conservative and dissenting voices, including presumably many GM customers on the right. None of that was a concern for GM but the pledge to restore free speech to Twitter warrants a suspension.
The letter is open about the potential cascading effect if free speech is restored on one platform: “While the company is hardly a poster-child for healthy social media, it has taken welcome steps in recent years to mitigate systemic risks, ratcheting up pressure on the likes of Facebook and YouTube to follow suit.”
The letter insists that free speech will only invite “disinformation, hate, and harassment” and that “[u]nder the guise of ‘free speech,’ [Musk’s] vision will silence and endanger marginalized communities, and tear at the fraying fabric of democracy.”
Among other things, the letter demands “algorithmic accountability,” a notable inclusion in light of Democratic politicians demanding enlightened algorithms to protect citizens from their own bad choices or thoughts.
In addition to Accountable Tech, twenty-five other groups signed the letter to demand the restoration of censorship policies, including Media Matters and the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. Accountable Tech has partnered in the past with Hillary Clinton’s Onward Together nonprofit group.
I have no objection to boycotts, which are an important form of free speech. However, this boycott action is directed at restoring censorship and preventing others from being able to post or to read opposing viewpoints.
If consistent with their past records, these companies will likely cave to these demands. While the public has clearly shown that they want more (not less) free speech, these executives are likely to yield to the pressure of Clinton and other powerful figures to coerce Musk into limiting the speech of others on his platform.
These campaigns only add support to Musk’s push for alternative revenue sources, including verification fees. As I previously wrote, we can show that there is a market for free speech by supporting Twitter in trying to reduce the dependence on corporate sponsors. If Musk remains faithful to free speech, many customers are likely to join his platform and support his effort to reduce censorship on social media.
Funny how it’s always dems and leftists that demand censorship …on about every level. You have to ask yourself why if it is not already readily apparent to you. Free thought is abhorrent to the leftist reservation managers and its stalwart apparatchiks. Thinking is verboten in their world. And these same left bent types have the gall to call anyone outside their POV fascists!…they have yet to look in the mirror and anoint themselves with their own ugliness on this.
Why the HELL isn’t she in prison where she belongs?? This is ridiculous.
What crime did she commit?
BREATHING COMES TO MIND…..
Clinton mishandled sensitive or classified material, she had a secret server set up to house her classified and top secret information. She declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight. There’s a ton more, but you obviously will come up with some excuse. But we all know if Trump did any of what SHE did, you would be crying like a baby.
Correct you are my friend! Correct you are! furthermore if President Trump hadn’t done what Hillary Clinton did, you can bet the justice department would have indicted him.
Lets be clear – because details are important.
Clinton took classified material from a SCIF int he State department, surreptitiously transferred it to her email at the state department.
Then emailed it rto people who were not cleared to access that information.
With the resulting emails being stored on her own internet connected server in her basement.
Her email acocunt was then separately being backed up onto Human Abedin’s laptop – which somehow eventually ened up in Anthony Weiners possession – and this was discovered when Weiner was cuaght sending dick pics to under age girls.
It has been confirmed that atleast one hostile foreign power had real time access to clintons mail server.
The Sec State does not have independent declassification authority.
Does not have the authority to remove classified information from a SCIF
It is important to understand the facts because the claim that Trump also mishandled classified information is so radically different.
Trump did nothing sereptitiously – he did not need to. The president is the ultimate classification and declassification authority.
We do not have all the facts – even still. But we can assume the worst and still not end up with an actual crime.
If the documents at MAL were transfered there at Trump’s direction while President
There is almost no scenraion in which they Both remain classified AND a crime has been committed.
While “experts” are correct that Trump can not think classified documents declassified.
Any action taken by Trump as president that removes those documents from secure control – declassifies them.
The only way Trump can transfer Classified documents to MAL and have them remain classified is if there was a SCIF at MAL – which there was.
But even if there was a SCIF and after the transfer they remained classified.
If Trump as president directed they were transfered to a location that in the future would remove them from secure control – without further action on his part – they are declassified.
To have an actual crime Trump must ACT to remove them from secure control AFTER he is president.
Crimes are acts – sitting and waiting for the inevitable is not an ACT.
To remain classified – the documents must be transfered to MAL, and the SCIF at MAL must remain a legitimate secure repository for classified documents.
Put simply there is no way the transfer or mere presence of these documents at MAL is a crime.
If and Only if they were not previously declassified, or declassified by Trump removing them from the WH while president.
Then you would have to have an ACT by Trump AFTER he was president.
And AGAIN that must be an actual ACT.
Failure to return them is not an ACT.
Trump would have to email them to someone. put them on a server, or share them with someone without clearance.
The fact that Clinton’s documents were all transfered repeatedly by Clinton over the internet is sevral orders of magnitude more problematic than Trump moving paper copies of documents from one SCIF to another, or even leaving them lying arround in his govenrment paid for presidential office in his secret service guarded home, in a gated community on a island with controlled access.
I tell you what, start with this.
“ During questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Baker was unequivocal about his early view that Clinton should face criminal charges.
“I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.
Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.” He later explained why he came to that conclusion, and how his mind was changed:”
(As you can see I have taken the liberty to give you the link so you can go and finish reading the rest of the article at your leisure.)
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was/
(Then read this old boy. From the, IBD. Investors Business Daily.)
“ In other words, Clinton’s clear reckless negligence itself warranted charges. But because of Comey, Andrew McCabe, and others at the FBI and Justice Department, she was never charged. Instead, they used charges contained in an unverified dossier financed by Hillary Clinton to begin their relentless pursuit of Donald Trump.
This isn’t the first time we’ve talked about this, by the way. Way back in October of 2016, we led our editorial with this: “When FBI Director James Comey dismissed the case against Hillary Clinton he said it was because no reasonable attorney would take the case. Now we learn that there were plenty who would have done so.”
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fbi-officials-wanted-to-charge-hillary-clinton-turns-out-they-should-have/
Sending highly classified documents to unauthorized recipients who were outside of governmnt over the internet.
Among the myriads of documents – were emails from clinton to Sydney Bluementhal – a Clinton aparatich – Who Obama refuesed to allow in his administrtion – because Blumenthal was the author of the birther stuff. Those emails contained Top Secret code word only documents about the US drone programming and targeting. Blumenthal used this information in his lobbying in the mideast.
HRC is nothing other than a cancer on our body politic. She is a far greater threat to democracy then Trump ever was. She built a multi-hundred million dollar empire on the backs of public tax payers. Listening to her words should convince anyone that she is a true fascist.
People with brains want free speech. So, we must cross most currently enrolled college students off that list. Just watch news accounts of the crazy antics these spoiled, ignorant brats engage in if a group wants to have a conservative speak.
If America had a Supreme Court, every governmental act to abridge free speech and every governmental act of censorship would have been struck down at its point of conception.
If America had a Supreme Court, only property owners would have the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
__________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
Elon Musk made a terrible deal when he decided to buy twitter and that is his biggest problem. Twittter was valued at least $20 billon when he bought it and he paid a little more than double for it. He messed up big time and he knows it, That is why he tried to back out of it at first but he was already obliged to anyway. He would have had to pay a billion dollars to twitter if he decided to not go thru the deal.
Since he bought twitter it’s value has plunged to a reported $8billion. Those “verification fees” won’t put any meaningful money into the business and he’s already struggling to stave off an impending financial disaster that will drag down Tesla and likely Space X too.
Turley never mentions the problem Elon has with the consent decree twitter is required to adhere because of these imposter accounts and the damage they can do.
Turley never talks about those problems and Elon’s disatrous verified account fees and it’s handling. But offers a Hillary Clinton “connection” that is not even verified as a means to “deflect” from those more serious problems. Maybe there should be “verified” accoutn holder using Turley’s name to make some legal advice. $8 worth of credibility sure seems like a sweet deal.
I’m willing to bet Elon knew Twitter’s value pretty certainly.
It was worth whatever it cost to destroy the utility of Twitter as a tool for maximum amplification of Statists and other Leftists.
“Elon Musk made a terrible deal when he decided to buy twitter and that is his biggest problem. “
Svelaz thinks he is a better businessman than Musk. That is a laugh, but we shouldn’t be surprised. Svelaz also thinks himself a genius. Perhaps when surrounded by morons, he is.
Turley is hilarious. Either he’s being incredibly naive or he is being ignorant. Could be both.
Advertisers are pulling out because Musk’s $8 verification fee that anyone can use has been used to put out false information about companies and even celebrities. That blue check mark that makes a post “verified” doesn’t prevent those users from putting anything as the byline. a pharmaceutical company lost share value briefly when a “verified” account posing as the official company stated “free insulin is now available” or something like that.
Musk froze those accounts and is now dealing with the ensuing mess he created with this poor choice of “business ideas”.
If Hillary Clinton wants to suggest to companies to boycott twitter because, clearly it’s doing a really bad job right now. In controlling these “verified” accounts and their false claims. It seems “bringing back free speech to twitter” is a lot harder than he expected. This is why those so have had years of experience running the platform knew why those ideas don’t work in reality despite that it should on paper.
@Svelaz
I’ve decided that no, Svelaz, you are not a young, paid troll, but rather very old, very bitter, and very much lacking in a grasp of the late 20th and 21st century and all that has developed therein, probably starting with the original www revolution way back in the 90s. You are not as smart as you fancy yourself to be, not even close, you do not have a clue what life in this century entails, you are not up to date, and we really wish you’d found another diversion to entertain your bored, and likely very privileged mind. I’ve seen it too often – where so many folks of a certain age seem to keep thinking they are voting in 1963 or 1992. There is no meaningful way to catch a person like that up at this point, when they have lived in a closet for 40 or more years. It is literally a waste of time. So keep kvetching, Svelaz. Your little personal storm cloud will never result in rain, and even though my opinions are sometimes disposable, you are absolutely irrelevant. At least the rest of us are responding in real time instead of trying to time travel.
James: is this ad hominem attack the best you can do? You are a perfect example of why America hates Trump–no substantive way to respond to posts you disagree with, so you attack the person.
I’ve decided that no, Svelaz, you are not a young, paid troll, but rather very old, very bitter,…..
Svelaz appeared on this forum a few years ago along the same time he used another sock puppet by the name of Peter Hill. After having been mocked by everyone for his sophomoric, adolescent screeds and going threw dozens of sock puppet names, he reverted to Svelaz. The other names disappeared. You can tell it is him because his comments are composed with monosyllabic words, lack depth, have a juvenile flavor and the same cue words permeate most of his attention seeking rants. That or he sniffs glue
😉
Estovir,
Thanks for posting that! One of my favorite movies.
Estovir,
I doubt Svelaz is Peter Hill aka Paint Chips. Don’t get me wrong, they’re both Trolls, To borrow a line or two from Eddie Izzard, Svelaz is more of an Executive Troll, Paint Chips I would categorize as a Weirdo Troll. Pardon the language. Trigger Warning!
😂
Olly,
Like Estovir, thank you for the laugh!
Eddie Izzard is hysterical!
I am currious – I just do not understand the fixation of posters right and left here over the multiple or past identities that posters have used ?
I have used my jbsay psuedonym for over a decade.
Posters here – and other places no it, and no what to expect.
I strive to be accurate, and to make credible arguments.
I would not want to change to a different name – because I have worked to build credibility, a reputation.
While I frequently provide sources to support my arguments, I do not do so always.
Again – I have worked to establish a reputation for accuracy and a foundation for trust.
Why would I give that up ?
Conversely if some poster has so damaged their own reputation that they feel compelled to switch identities – so what ?
Starting over does not entitle you to respect or trust – you must earn those.
I have no problem with people here who post anonymously.
I have a major problem with anonymous posters who think they are entitled to trust and respect.
You want that – post under a name.
I have a problem with anonymous posters who think it is the responsibility of the rest of us to guess which anonymous is which.
Every single anonymous post is logically standalone. It has no past, and no future. It is entitled to no trust or credibility or respect other than what little it earns in the words of a single post.
The next anonymous post can not with cerainty claim to be heir to a prior post.
No one knows but the poster – and as they are anonymous they are not entitled to trust.
Regardless, “circling back” to my point.
Why the fixation on who might have been who in the past ?
Why the fixation on who might have been who in the past ?
Why do you fixate on your own reputation? That’s right.
Speaking of reputations. Note that I didn’t bury the question at the end of yet another long-winded comment.
I need to look for a fire extinguisher to douse the flames
🔥 😢
Olly, I am not looking for conflict with you.
My question was sincere. Further it was clear from the first sentence through to the last.
I was not tooting my own horn, nor was that my purpose.
I sincerely do not understand the fixation of posters here on who used to be who, and who some anonymous poster actually is.
You post as Olly, I presume you are not posting here under multiple identities –
you are obviously free to.
But everything I said about myself applies to most every other poster here who uses the same identity over the long term.
You too have built a reputation posting as Olly.
I am not trying to tell you what to do, or how to post.
I am asking a question sincerely.
Maybe you have a reason I had not considered.
Even if you do not – ultimately that is OK.
My big problem is with anonymous posters who beleive they are entitled to force the rest of us to sort which anonymous posts are from which anonymous poster.
“I sincerely do not understand the fixation of posters here on who used to be who, and who some anonymous poster is.”
John, understanding the person helps to understand the context and deeper thoughts of individuals. You are very good at your brand of discussion and produce excellent replies. Could they be better if you understood the individual you were replying to? That remains unknown. When I am working my abilities are enhanced by knowing who and what I am dealing with. This is even important in buying and selling stocks, at least for me, because my decisions are made by watching people and learning how and why they buy certain things. My big winners all had to do with that type of knowledge, plus making sure the companies were reasonably structured. I never did a complete analysis.
I bought Apple at $7.5 or $15, not sure. That was based on understanding a mindset I didn’t have. I bought Starbucks early because I was in a beautiful coffee store and Starbucks was about to open, (about 1 year away) on Newbury Street in Boston, not because I understand coffee or knew Starbucks but because the guy I talked to was an expert on coffee and thought his store would be destroyed. I bought Outback because I was in one of their early restaurants in a more remote area and I spoke to the waiter as to why he sold his restaurant and went to work for Outback. The restaurant was full at an off time and out of a couple of dozen Outbacks, it was the worst performer. On none of these did I have an in-depth knowledge of the financials. of the companies involved. I hate shopping and malls, but when my wife drags me I look at the people and take note of what they are carrying. Sometimes I will walk up to a stranger and ask a few questions about a purchase. From that, I bought certain stocks prominently sold in retail stores. I watch trends and bought Broadcom, Cemex, and other stocks, even though I barely knew what they did.
John, your method is good but don’t discount the method of others. Earning money for me required a lot of understanding about who I was dealing with. It wasn’t really my knowledge that made money on stocks. It was the knowledge of others.
Absolutely understanding the person and history of a poster helps understand the post.
That is why not to post anonymous.
The answer to anonymous posts is that they start line one with zero credibility. They must earn credibility within the boundaries of the post, and when the post closes that is the end.
I can make guesses as to which anonymous post belongs to which anonymous.
And several anonymous posters here have even demanded that I do so.
I wont because it is not possible. The best you can get is being probably right.
And even if you are the anonymous poster can disown their own posts and make you look the fool.
I am not going to try to do what is not possible, and is dangerous to my reputation.
I am especially not going to when it is easier to accept what is self evidently true.
If you post as anonymous – you start with no history and no credibility.
Each post is standalone.
I have never deliberately posted anonymously.
Once in a while I do so accidentally.
When I do – those posts are not entitled to the credibility I have earned either.
If one takes reasonable care, one will be right most of the time. Where wrong, it means that person is mimicking the person under discussion, so it makes no difference.
The anonymous character cannot make a reasonable person look like a fool for the reason you mention. He has no reputation and cannot be trusted.
Anonymous the Stupid (ATS) tried to prove me wrong multiple times and looked like a fool. He has no credibility. He lies and even does so under the cloak of anonymity. His reputation is in the sewer. I try to tell the truth because I never want to be caught in a lie. If I say something that looks like a lie, there is more than one interpretation, or I made a bad mistake. When not reasonably sure, I let others know.
My big problem is with anonymous posters who beleive they are entitled to force the rest of us to sort which anonymous posts are from which anonymous poster.
John,
My initial question regarding how important is was for you to build and sustain a reputation was intended to assist you in understanding why I “fixate” on identifying one Anonymous from another. I consider this blog not much different than I would being physically in a room with everyone here. There may be introductions, we may learn some interesting facts about each other. When someone builds a reputation with a unique name, I already have a well established understanding of their worldview. So my starting point when reading their comment begins there. When someone posts Anonymously, it’s as though a masked stranger walked into a discussion room and I have to begin from a different spot. The desire to know who you’re dealing with is just human nature. We all do it. Don’t attorneys want to know who opposing counsel is? Don’t they want to know who the judge is? So, my interest is unmasking the Anonymous commenter.
You have inspired me to return to my practice of ignoring them. Thank you.
You have inspired me to return to my practice of ignoring them.
On this forum we are guests to a host: Professor Turley. Our host has asked his guests (us) to comply with rules, some of which include ignoring the trolls.
A while back you quoted GK Chesterton, which surprised yet gratified me, since he was a Catholic convert and gifted writer. The quote you used IIRC had to do with free will. Pope John Paul II wrote numerous scholarly theological and philosophical works, many of them rooted in St Augustine, particularly the idea of free will. Pope John Paul II, Chesterton, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas all articulated the following idea:
Having the freedom to do something does not mean you should
or other iterations therein.
We as guests should be mindful of our host and certainly of his instructions to his guests. None of us would tolerate guests on our property or in our homes if they disregarded our rules
We should all show respect to our host by respecting his rules. Just because we have the freedom to disregard Professor Turley’s “house” rules does not mean we should
This was not directed to you Olly but to all of us guests on Turley’s home turf
It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all
– GK Chesterton in “Orthodoxy”, 1908.
Thank you for that reminder.
We should all show respect to our host by respecting his rules. Just because we have the freedom to disregard Professor Turley’s “house” rules does not mean we should.
I believe the best way we can honor our host’s commitment to allow members to remain anonymous, is to also commit to not feed the trolls that privilege inspires. So I will commit to ignoring all anonymous members, regardless of their contributions. I will apologize in advance to those anonymous contributors that demonstrate a respect for our hosts rules.
Every single anonymous post starts with a presumption of zero credibility and zero history.
That is not intended as an insult. It is just how it is.
By default real names have the highest initial credibility.
Pseudonyms are next.
Both of the above can build or ruin their own credibility over time.
Anonymous speech is a right. But it comes at the cost of no reputation, no credibility.
I am not attacking you.
But so long as you give an anonymous post the initial credibility it deserves – there is no need for history.
Further chasing history is a fools errand. I very rarely connect an annoymous post to a prior remark by what I think is the same party.
If I am wrong that harms my credibility. Further – I can never prove I am right, and the anonymous poster can disown prior posts with no penatly – making me look like a fool.
Put simply trying to build a history for an anonymous poster risks my credibility for little or no benefit.
But making it clear that all anonymous posts start with zero initial credibility is both correct and no risk to my reputation.
An anonymous post earns what credibility it can within the body of that single post.
I have harped on variations of this before.
Left wing nut posters here constantly try to claim that everyone has an equal burden of proof – like everything that left wing nuts say – that is not merely a lie, it is also something THEY do not stick to.
What is an “expert” – it is someone that has earned – from SOME a greater initial credibility.
Named posters and real people build reputations – THAT is their burden of proof.
Post the truth, avoid errors, correct those you make, and you do not need to prove your assertions unless you want to.
You have EARNED that, that is what reputation and cerdibility mean.
Post false information, make errors, fail to correct – and you must prove EVEYTHING.
Post anonymously – and you must prove everything.
Just to be clear if chasing down the history of anonymous posters floats your boat – you are obviously free to do so.
I just still do not understand. It is a fools errand and a mine field.
It is a fools errand because you can not know that you are correct.
It is a mine field because if you make a mistake or even if an anonymous poster can fraudulently claim you made a mistake – your credibility suffers.
My skills at internet Telepathy are not such that I would bet on correctly choosing which posts belong to which anonymous.
I am not good at ignoring posts.
I do not care who the poster is if I see a point to be made.
MOSTLY. I try to avoid responding to posts I agree with, or my disagreements are not important.
Further the left today, and leftists ideas are not only stupid they are dangerous.
That is not true of most of the right. Even when wrong they are not dangerous.
I am not republican, I am not conservative.
I frequently vote libertarian when that is a choice.
But with rare exceptions republicans are not “a threat to democracy” or even close.
The left is, and todays democrats are owned by the left.
I am less likely to take aim at a poster on the right that has made an error, because those are rarely a fraction as dangerous as those of the left.
Once again, you model Christ’s teachings. /s
“Svelaz appeared on this forum a few years ago along the same time he used another sock puppet by the name of Peter Hill.”
At one time I thought he was Peter Hill as well, but Svelaz provides more erroneous information than Hill and posts so much more. That is a good thing. It keeps him away from the elementary schools.
James, you complain like an old fogey. I’m munch younger than you think. That’s a lot of words of saying nothing. Maybe you could actually address the point instead of whining like a grumpy old timer suffering the scourge of little children running on your front yard.
James,
For the most part I just scroll past their posts as they are generally not worth reading.
However, when I do read their posts, it does offer some insight into the delusions of the woke leftist mind.
Fascinating from a clinical perspective.
Frighting from a society and cultural perspective.
Yeah this is super-pathetic even for Turley. The whole Musk Twitter purchase was predicated on this absurd idea that conservative voices are silenced or “shadowbanned” by Twitter’s algorithm. Musk was going to ride to the rescue and save free speech- there’s just one problem: there is no shadowbanning, it is just that conservatives’ ideas are awful and unpopular and no one likes them. Luckily we have our host, the Legal Laughingstock of Langley, to explain how Musk’s ill-advised purchase and baby-brained ideas are somehow Hillary Clinton’s fault.
Dirt: When you and Gigi and Svelaz get off your “LET’S HATE TURLEY AND TRUMP AND MUSK” binge, let us know. You don’t like free speech, we get it. The Clinton’s have a lot of sway in America still, and I cannot think of one positive thing they ever did for the country. Most of what they have done was for self-aggrandizement and cold, hard cash. Sort of like the precursor to the Biden Family.
Musk doesn’t like free speech. This is why he fires employees who speak out against him and bans accounts, which mock him.
Musk likes pro-Musk speech, which is his prerogative. But, don’t try to defend his actions as advancing the cause of free speech.
Musk doesn’t like free speech. This is why he fires employees who speak out against him
You have never managed people. You fire employees that refuse to work as a team.
Early in my career I went into the boss and explained some problems I had identified. He listened for a bit. The stopped me. Told me the next time I came to him with problems and no solutions, I was fired. From than on, I only offered solutions, or never spoke up.
I have also been on teams to onboard companies we bought. Every single employee was guaranteed a job….as long as they joined the team. If not they were offered a months pay and removed from the property and not allowed to come back for visits.
This standard stuff, the media blows out of proportion.
Randy, I couldn’t agree more with you I come on here quite often to read Mr. Turley’s articles because I like them and I like him. Although I don’t comment very much. I used to comment far more than I do now, but I came to see that there is a certain segment of people that simply love to argue more than learn anything. Or share ideas.
And I’ve seen more than my share of, “Incorrigibly belligerent”, online brats. And what gets me is the amount of people that really believe, I guess they believe, let me just say that.
The amount of people that seem to believe that they’re really going to change somebody else’s mind and come over to your side no matter how much the person verbally abuses them. Truly, unbelievable Randy.
Absurd? Absurd you say????? TWATTER Was, shadow-banning / Silencing Conservatives by the thousands. Many actual real mature age Boomer Liberals would tell you this. Just starting with James Howard Kunstler / Bill Maher / Alex Berenson
Michael Shellenberger, all these for starters. All, of them have said things about it happening / publish articles pertaining to it.
Recent emails. and communications between government and SM companies have established that SM companies at the request of the Biden administration banned or reduced distribution of 120M posts in the past year alone.
Hopes she runs again for office so she can be rejected once again by America.
Margot Ballere: uh, you got your facts wrong–Hillary WON the popular vote in 2016, and Trump got into office by cheating–providing insider polling information to Russian hackers who spread lies about her on social media. Trump was rejected a second time in 2020, but keeps on lying about this. His Senate picks and all of the election deniers who would have been in place to help him cheat his way back into office in 2024 all LOST their elections. Hillary has given no indication of any willingness to run for office again. WHY do you hate her so much?–according to Rick Wilson, the best way to stir up theTrumpster element of the Republican party is to use Nancy Pelosi and/or Hillary Clinton.
NUTCHACHACHA,
Real President Donald J. Trump won the majority of 50 State elections, per the Constitution.
Russia, Russia, Russia did nothing it hasn’t done for the past 75 years in U.S. elections.
The people who spread lies in 2020 were FBI leaders and personnel, and various and sundry other governmental agents and Deep Deep State “Swamp” operatives.
Your statement is immutably false, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Oh, and did I say doltish?
NUTCHACHACHA,
Can America get rid of unconstitutional affirmative action, quotas, welfare, public housing, etc., now…
or do you still need it?
And how exactly were those Russian hackers more effective in spreading lies than other people who continually spread lies?
Was there something special about those hackers?
Hillary Clinton!!!!
Hunter Biden!!!!!
Aargh, and hoo boy. This woman is a witch. Period. I no longer have words for these tyrants. The tyrannical American Democratic party is going to go the way of the dodo, one way or another, probably through fracture. So-called ‘moderate’ democrats either do not exist exist or are such cowards they are impossible to take seriously (our host is obviously an exception – he is not in good company). I am just sickened by these people, and Hillary is the worst. Nancy is a possible second. I have never felt this level of animosity toward anyone my entire life, even politically; these are actual, real life villains, and what they intend has dire consequences for us all that are not multi-millionaires. Trump is a blowhard and an idiot, I wish he’d check his ego and step aside, but these people are actually *evil*.
With the entire Western world veering in this direction, where does one go? Do we really need another world war to balance the scales? Make no mistake, modern liberals are the inheritors of everything we fought against in the 20th century. Younger generations gleefully embrace it, and we could be headed for a world of trouble. I hope not. Regardless: Gen x and older – do not count on ever retiring. We will be carrying this burden to the end of our days. Could have nipped it in the bud in the high chair, we didn’t. And now we deal with generations that might make us choose, however it plays out, between freedom and subjugation. Would have been easier to deal with in the high chair if we weren’t such wimps.
James,
Well said.
I would argue that traditional Liberals like Bill Maher, and Musk see through the sickness that has infested their party and pushed it so far very left with wokeism.
I think that is why the good professor points it out as well.
They did not leave the party. The party left them.
I was trying to think of a parallel character to Hillary Clinton when a thought came to mind. Shakespeare warned us about a conniving queen in one of his plays. The play was Macbeth. The conniving queen in the play was Lady Macbeth. If Shakespeare was alive and writing today Queen Hillary would be calling for his cancellation. Hold on to your hat, some will soon call for Shakespeare to be expungement from our literature because he was a white guy.
@Thinkitthrough…
Naw you’re wrong.
There’s the story that he was a ghost writer for a woman who couldn’t get published because she was female.
So he’s safe.
(Sarcasm of course)
Bad people do bad things and they can’t afford sunlight to be shown on them.
Forensic counter measures are exactly what Hillary has scrambled to do many times before.
Clinton directly involved or not is a moot point, though her calling on the EU to block Musk is a bit telling. Note, that is not mentioned in the professor’s article, but was in the news last week IIRC.
The actions of Accountable Tech and their coordination with other groups is what needs to be watched closely. If it is later discovered that Clinton was involved, meh. Whatever.
The things that Hillary left out are if you don’t comply we will bankrupt you and put you in the Gulag. Stalin would be proud to hear his sentiments repeated in the modern world.
Just to insure that we know where Hillary Clinton stands on free speech on Twitter here is a direct quote from her Twitter account. “For too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability. The EU is poised to do something about it.
I urge our transatlantic allies to push the Digital Services Act across the finish line and bolster global democracy before it’s too late.” Just like other queens in history she wants to tell us what we can say and what we can hear. When she speaks of Democracy she really means that the basket of deplorables have no right to be heard. She dresses it up but she actually is warning us that Democratic Socialism is in grave peril. She either doesn’t have the guts to come right out and say it or she is just hiding her true convictions. My mistake, it’s both.
Hillary Clinton continues to prove how progressively corrupt one one Blackberry smashing politician can be. At least she is consistent.
There is no evidence that Hillary had anything to do with this letter.
Rule of Thumb: Most corporations support and embrace censorship. Not bad shareholders, but they value not offending customers over free speech.
That’s why cable networks, like HBO, have more freedom than most other cable companies. The customers/subscribers – that hate censorship – primarily fund the company. Not primarily funded by advertisers.
Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies could adopt a hybrid model: of Wikipedia style footnote-links combined with a Hollywood movie/TV ratings system.
Let’s get to the real issue. Censors are concerned that the Trump Insurrection wing might try again to overthrow the U.S. government and use social media to do it.
Example of how this system might work:
If Trump advocated drinking industrial bleach to cure Covid (which he did). Trump would have to label his post (ie: R, Adult Content, Opinion, etc). In this particular case, Trump would have had to use “footnote-links” (similar to Wikipedia’s system). Trump’s footnote would have stated that his “Opinion” derived from a fake preacher, of a fake church in South America and that this fake preacher was currently in prison when he said it.
Facebook or Twitter users could set “viewing filters” (already exist in the cable TV industry). Maybe a parent would block “Political Speech, Opinion, Violent Content, R” rated social media posts. It’s likely most Facebook and Twitter users would block “Political Speech” altogether, never reading Trumps posts.
For those that do read it, they can also read the footnote-links. They would find out that not even Fox News, Wall Street Journal or NY Post (conservative papers) would repeat the Trump lies.
There are better solutions instead of government-coerced “censorship”, which the courts will overturn anyway as violating the First Amendment. Advertisers support censorship, so advertisers won’t fix this.
“If Trump advocated drinking industrial bleach to cure Covid (which he did).”
noooo he didn’t.
“Trump spoke about the role he thought disinfectants could play in tackling an infection caused by the virus during a now infamous April 23 briefing. But he didn’t say people should drink bleach.
His comments came after William Bryan, the undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security, presented a study that found sun exposure and cleaning agents like bleach can kill the virus when it lingers on surfaces.
Trump remarked on the effectiveness of those methods and wondered if they could help address infections in the human body.
Here are his full comments:
“A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?”
He continued.
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”
Later, Trump clarified his comments after a reporter asked Bryan whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients.
“It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”
Trump did not explicitly recommend ingesting a disinfectant like bleach. Nevertheless, his remarks led some companies and state agencies to issue warnings about ingesting disinfectants. The maker of Lysol said in a statement that “under no circumstance” should its products be used in the human body.
The Biden campaign did not respond to a request for comment about what evidence the former vice president relied on when he claimed the president suggested Americans drink bleach to combat the virus.
Our ruling
Biden said Trump said drinking bleach could help fight the coronavirus. Trump did not specifically recommend ingesting disinfectants, but he did express interest in exploring whether disinfectants could be applied to the site of a coronavirus infection inside the body, such as the lungs. We rate Biden’s claim Mostly False.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/
“
Peter K: the big point in all of this is : Trump had no business monopolizing COVID news conferences, trying to upstage the doctors or giving medical advice. He did so because there were cameras there and he can’t resist getting his obese frame in front of cameras due to his malignant narcissism. If there’s a limellight, he’s going to take it. Why did he even bring up the idea of ingesting bleach or putting lights inside the human body to kill COVID, which he did do–he suggested that investigators should consider using bleach and light inside the human body since these things kill COVID. Because Trumpsters are gullible and like to believe his lies, companies that make disinfectant products thought it prudent to warn against attempting to ingest Lysol and bleach. Just like the problems with his suggestion to use Hydroxychloroquine and horse de-wormer: no science behind it, but the faithful disciples believed it, and continue to defend it to this day, despite proof that neither of these “treatments” is effective. What business does he have giving medical advice or even commenting on medical matters that are beyond his knowledge? That ego of his answers all of these questions. Because of his massive ego, he cannot defer to the expertise of others, including doctors, because no one knows more than he does and he’s never been wrong and can never be wrong. This explains the Big Lie–he cannot possibly have failed to secure more votes than Biden, so there must have been fraud. This is how a narcissist thinks, and it’s dangerous.
He did not use the word bleach.
Two points:
– given inflation and the economy, how can it be a bad thing?
– remember when FJB supporters tried to overthrow the government? https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html
“Restoring free speech” to Twitter? What a naive idealist JT seems to be. Under JT’s “widest berth” definition of free speech, deceptive infowarriors are handed all the advantages of first strike, oversimplified narrative, heroes and villains drama, and no-cost information gathering. Worst of all, those infowarriors get the time-to-market advantage whereby realtime decisions cannot wait for the truth to be investigated, verified and published — and thus public mass-effect decisions (investments, votes, journalism) may be craftily manipulated by the infowarrior.
Twitter cannot possibly survive if it becomes a cesspool of untrustworthy trash. No advertiser wants even a hint of “brand association” with postings of sociopathic-mendacious speech. So, Twitter will have to stick to its content moderation policies if it wants to survive. That means Kari Lake cannot rant-tweet about her defeat actually being a victory snatched away by voting fraud. Can’t allow it and keep the ad people happy.
So, nothing substantial changes per Twitter moderation. And JT marches on as the defender of infospace metastasis….a complete surrender of norms of civility and honesty — then civil war.
Twitter advertised itself as the the “free speech wing of the free speech party”
The masks are off; they really are Bolsheviks.
I’m sorry. The idea Musk is restoring free speech principles on Twitter is laughable.
youre paid by Media Matters to cast aspersions and throw muck on this site 25/8 so there is that.
troll baby troll like your income depends on it
🤡
You do like to project.
I’m sorry.
The idea Musk is restoring free speech principles on Twitter is laughable.Yes you are. You wouldn’t know an idea if it hit you right between the eyes.
How does banning Twitter accounts that mock Musk advance free speech exactly?
How does banning Twitter accounts that mock Musk advance free speech exactly?
Planting trees after a wildfire doesn’t immediately make it a forest. Twitter’s anti-free speech wildfire was raging for years. Musk has owned Twitter for 3 weeks. I’ll reserve judgment until I see what kind of business culture he wants to flourish at this company.
In the meantime…
Employees immediately took to Twitter to disparage the announcement. “He is literally asking us to starve to death,” tweeted employee Janelle Misiqua (@manwoman). UPDATE: Janelle Misiqua has been fired.
https://babylonbee.com/news/musk-announces-all-food-in-twitter-cafeteria-will-cost-8
How does “business culture” have anything to do with whether Musk upholds his commitment to free speech?
The $8 blue check thing is not a joke. It literally cost Eli Lilly $15B in market cap because a fake “verified” account tweeted that insulin is now free.
Come on man! Do you believe Musk is manning every desk at Twitter headquarters? He bought a company with an existing anti-free speech corporate culture 3 weeks ago. It’s not a 14′ Lido that will turn on a dime, this is a supercarrier. Until his vision for the company changes the existing culture to one committed to free speech, it is unreasonable to assume every single data point coming out of that company reflects the direction he’s trying to move it.
You should believe that Musk was the one who enacted the $8 for an unverified blue checkmark that caused the problem for Eli Lilly Co. Musk told everyone that he was going to do it, even when others were pointing out the problems it would cause. Are you suggesting that Musk was lying about it being his choice?
https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/elon-musk-eight-dollar-twitter-verification-plan
Why doesn’t “reddit” have these problems? It is a similar website which is owned by a commercial company, Advance Media, I believe. Can someone put Twitter into context for us?
It is plain and clear that the mods of the reddit subs make their own rules for each sub. Few people bat an eye if a mod for a Holocaust education subreddit bans users for denying the Holocaust or making anti-Jewish jokes.